Windows 10 Home Updates To Be Automatic and Mandatory 628
AmiMoJo sends a report stating that Windows 10 Home users don't seem to have any way to disable automatic updates to the operating system. Throughout the testing of the Technical Preview, users noted that this option wasn't available, but it wasn't clear whether that was intended for the full release. Now that the suspected RTM build has been distributed, only two options are available regarding update installation: update then reboot automatically, or update then reboot manually. A quote from the EULA seems to support this: "The Software periodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. ... By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice."
The article notes, "This has immediately raised concerns. Today, if a Windows user finds that an update breaks something that they need, they can generally refuse that update for an extended period. ... For Windows 10 Home users, this isn't going to be an option. If a future update breaks something essential, the user is going to be out of luck." Windows 10 Pro users will be able to delay updates for some period of time, and Enterprise users will have update functionality similar to that of Windows 8.
The article notes, "This has immediately raised concerns. Today, if a Windows user finds that an update breaks something that they need, they can generally refuse that update for an extended period. ... For Windows 10 Home users, this isn't going to be an option. If a future update breaks something essential, the user is going to be out of luck." Windows 10 Pro users will be able to delay updates for some period of time, and Enterprise users will have update functionality similar to that of Windows 8.
Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secure Boot (Score:5, Informative)
Not if alternatives to Microsoft software are impractical to procure. As of Windows 10 launch, Microsoft is allowing PC makers to lock users into Secure Boot. With this in place, and with trialware allegedly more than subsidizing the cost of a Windows license, I don't see laptop makers other than System76 and Apple caring about anything but Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
. Off the top of my head I could count at least a dozen critical applications my company absolutely can't live without that are Windows only.
It's like a celebration and embrace of stupidity. Or in a wildlife example, a butterfly so specialized it's caterpiller can only survive by eating one particular plant among the many available
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you even code, bro? As any programmer will tell you, building and supporting multi-platform apps is a royal pain in the ass and costly as hell too. Unless you are willing to pay out the nose, it ain't going to happen.
To brag about only one operating system, and one operating system only is mission critical, is exposing a huge vulnerability.
I'm a systems guy, knowing only enough programming to keep from being bullshitted by programmers. Andf teh idea that coding is too hard to do on anything but one platform is just that sort of bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Except sometimes the platform that suits your task best is the platform where your other apps and data already are. Integrating apps, data formats, network policies, and the like among diverse platforms can become painful, especially if you try to take it to the limit of one machine per app because each app has a different platform that suits it best.
Monoculture outlook. Everything must be the same. The problem with monoculture is, it preselects for one thing, declaring it the winner, and other perhaps better applications/machines are discarded for the convenience of the IT guy.
This goes even further, when monoculture fully takes hold, and people insist on only one platform. Which is why our display computers were so wonky. It was Dell or Die, baby. Complete with all the warts Dell came with in the AV arena. To wit....
Q. "What's all that noise comi
Re:Secure Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
When the business guys start making the technological decisions, it's time to look for another job.
Re: (Score:3)
This covers 9 out of 10 companies though. I have never worked anywhere in the last 30 years where the execs didn't screw stuff up in departments they didn't know anything about. People who insist on only working for sane companies may find themselves unemployed much of the time.
Face it, the company's leadership may be stupid, but they're also probably evil so don't feel bad about taking money from them in the form of a paycheck.
Five reasons to need Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be valid to say any of these?
Re:Secure Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think forced updates is it.
Can't be, this was announced and has been known for at least a couple of months already.
It's why I'm waiting another six months or so before deciding whether to take the free upgrade or not. Hopefully by then it'll have gone catastrophically wrong and they'll have given users some control back, or the after-market options will exist and I'll know what I need to do to cripple the automatic update.
Not really last minute is it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not really last minute is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people thought they were for the beta only. They thought that once RTM was released it would be a little less draconian.
I have a SERVER(!) 2008 R2 installation at home as my gaming machine, and it rebooted me in the middle of a game last night. And my settings weren't even set that way. So people saying, "I'll stay on the old one and it won't do this to me" are kidding themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If alternatives are indeed impractical then it's an argument in favor of nationalization of microsoft. It cannot be allowed to exercise such unlimited power over functionality of ALL computers without being subject to government checks and balances. Without competition Microsoft functions kinda like central mini-government of its own and if users can't influence it by taking away their money they should be allowed to influence it via other means.
Yes, that will fix everything! After all, who is more trustworthy than the US government?
Re: (Score:3)
A free-marketer eh? So am I.
I'll remind you of the two things needed for a free market: Freedom, and a market.
In this case you have neither. You must run Windows, and there is no alternative.
So you will be oppressed. You have two choices: be oppressed by a giant entity that you can (somewhat) vote for; or a giant entity against whom you have no recourse.
First of all, I think the millions of Mac and the 12 Linux desktop users of the world would be surprised to hear they have no choice but to run Windows. That aside, what you are talking about is taking it from a defacto monopoly to a sanctioned, possibly enforced one (the government doesn't really like competition when it comes to things they operate).
As for that giant entity that I can vote for, it doesn't exactly have the best record lately of being trustworthy for me. I don't recall voting to have th
Re:Secure Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
What alternatives are impractical? Android is thriving. Mac is thriving. A variety of embedded and server OSes are thriving. Virtualization has made Linux easier than ever to try.... Virtualization. cloud and remote desktop have made the base OS ever less important.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And every niche business application that someone might need has a F/OSS drop-in equivalent that runs under Mac OSX or Linux or Android, right?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't work on Windows 10. I'm running it in a VM now, if I disable the Windows Update service manually then Windows Defender turns it back on a minute later. You have to also disable Windows Defender real-time protection, and maybe other stuff as well... I have not tested every case where it might get re-enabled.
Re:Secure Boot (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who have a valid reason to not get them will know how to do this or it will be a quick google search away. The people who can't be bothered to figure it out are precisely the people who should have auto updates on.
Re: Who makes these decisions? (Score:2, Informative)
The NSA. They want to make sure everyone is running the same version so they only have to support one backdoor.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate. To me, Windows 10 seems like a downgrade from 7 ultimate.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
DirectX 12. Windows 7 won't have it. And as someone who plays a lot of PC games, DirectX versions matter. A lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate.
Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate went out of mainstream support in January, and they run out of extended support in 2020. Windows 7 also cannot run Universal apps, and it does not back up to OneDrive. Seamless backup is important because ordinary humans suck at backing up.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:4, Informative)
Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate. To me, Windows 10 seems like a downgrade from 7 ultimate.
FOr the record I had to update to WIndows 8.1 due to needing Hyper-V for some MCSE exams yada yada laugh all you want. I had to say goodbye to WIndows 7 which was my favorite OS from MS :-(
WIth that said WIndows 10 and even 8.1 offer: /online /cleanup-image /restorehealth where under WIndows 7 it would be a re-image. Again thanks to UEFI which is so hated for some reason here :-)
1. Much faster boot startup
2. WIth CSM bios disabled and all EFI the system loads in seconds from an SSD
3. Data and image redundancy with EFI GPT partitions (recovery partition allows you to restore image without app re-install)
4. Disk partitions more than 2 TB again EFI GPT over MBR partitions
5. Dism command for the local IT shop to fix corruption without a re-image. I fixed with dism
6. Secure boot. Yes outside of slashdot it is a feature and I do not have to worry about rootkits. FreeBSD and Ubuntu support secureboot keys. Add your own even
7.No nasty bios. You really need to disable CSM to get the benefits of the really fast bootup and less problems. Bios is from 1981 and has many limitations
8. Supperior battery life. As in a big boost as 8.0 and later use a tickless kernel and other power optimization options have been added
9. NFC printing
10. Desktop cloud synchronization. IE favorities, desktop settings, store apps, and even the add-ons like Adblockplus.
11. Tablet and mobile app support. The surface is starting to sell and it is nice to walk around my site to do network testing with a usb to ethernet adapter. WIndows 7 with no touch would be a pain
12. Future IOS and Android compatibility. 80% of phone apps code do not have to be rewriten with MS porting tools for universal apps which will support objective-C and Davilek. VS 2015 even installs Chrome and Clang
13. DirectX 12
I bought stardocks start8 and classic shell and put on aero8 and my system looks fine now.
I bought a surface for work and all my apps like netflix, kindle ebook, wallpaper, and my Onedrive files were all synced together. Grandma who has to have her grandkids wallpaper would like to have all of this on another system.
The only 2 things I give Windows 7 credit for today in 2015 is it is rock stable and has a more consistent prettier UI. On my VM lab I can tell the difference night and day between Windows 7/2008 R2 and 8.1/2012 R2 images. They boot 1/4th the time and are light. If you own a laptop you are doing a diservice to stick with WIndows 7.
Re: (Score:2)
The users. They can vote with their wallets, and refuse to use Microsoft software if they don't like it.
Not quite so, at least not for me. I'm using Windows because my clients are using it and I can't risk sending a document/spreadsheet/presentation that will not look the same in their Office as it looks in my LibreOffice. Hence I suck it up and use Windows. My partner uses Mac with MS Office on it, and I have to correct every document on Windows before she sends out. Especially because some of them are in Hebrew.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think consumers do like it. Both Android and iOS make it pretty much mandatory to get updates unless you go far out of your way to disable them. I don't use iOS much but Android quietly installs system updates in the background as long as you have Play installed (the default, 99% of devices do).
Users just want a secure system that works. They don't want to be asked stupid questions like "do you want this critical security fix?" It's stupid because they are a clueless user, so the answer is inevitably going to be "yes". All it does is train them to click "OK" when presented with anything that sounds security related.
The down side is that for the rest of us it means we need to upgrade to Pro. For most people though it's what they want: security and updates handled for them.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
The users. They can vote with their wallets, and refuse to use Microsoft software if they don't like it.
And they've been voting for Chromebooks which automatically update without giving the user a choice. So, Microsoft has to respond in like.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS's approach actually seems sensible to me and for the better good.
1) If you know enough about patches to delay them, and manually manage them you should probably be using Windows Pro anyways.
2) This will help discourage businesses from using Windows home in the business which is a good thing.
3) Hopefully this will create better communication with MS and 3rd party software vendors so they can release updates which don't break things. (which is less likely to happen to home users anyways... in my experience it's the highly custom proprietary software inside of companies that usually breaks)
4) this has an easy work around... use the Pro version instead of Home, which is what I normally recommend anyways. I used to charge 2x the hourly rate to work on home versions of XP, Vista.... not as bad with Win 7, etc... but still...
Re: (Score:3)
Another workaround is to block the Update site addresses in your firewall.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are aware that Notepad is just a simple text editor with NO ability to persist data right? If that is what you are looking for, then I would suggest you look into something like Evernote or OneNote because those are intended to persist information like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft probably listened to the hoards of people screaming for automatic updates after great swathes of unprotected computers around the world get infected by botnets and wreak havoc upon the rest of us.
Home users are not administrators. They don't understand the importance of updates, and nor should they. Microsoft seems to be doing the right thing here - accepting that their users are not computer experts, and that there will be times updates will need to be pushed to the Windows machines as quickly
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this out of touch? Deciding that home users generally don't make the correct choices on security is not being out of touch. Unifying the ecosystem offers benefits for all, deciding those are more important than home users having choice is not out of touch, even if you don't agree. Deciding that only people who buy the professional product will be able to make such choices offers a reasonable way out for those users highly motivated enough to make an informed decision.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, what we need to combat with software bugs is make bugs more expensive - so it is economical to to write properly working software in the first place. How about this: once a bug is discovered, for every affected computer, Microsoft gets to pay a $100 fine.
Also, how come Linux has less of the "OMG super critical" bugs, like Heartbleed?
Re: (Score:2)
Since Windows update isn't a repository for all software on the computer it becomes pretty useless at patching security holes in browser plugins. Windows programs by design also don't typically used shared libra
Re: (Score:3)
What else notable does Windows Pro add? (Score:2)
If you don't know enough to upgrade to Professional, perhaps you really ought to be getting your updates in a timely fashion.
Windows Pro is an extra cost add-on, and not all actual professionals (people who get paid to do things) understand how Windows Pro could benefit them. What features of Windows Pro are most important, other than the ability to delay updates?
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
ignorant Windows users can be about security
It's not "windows users", it's "users". Just feel lucky that Windows users haven't moved to Linux yet. Once they do, the ecosystem will get polluted.
Re:Who makes these decisions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having automatic Windows updates on by default and requiring a device administrator to disable it is prudent. Removing the ability to disable it is presumptuous and short sighted. I'll give you some scenarios why.
1) I'm giving a presentation on my laptop. Windows updates and restarts and the entire audience has to wait 10 minutes. Why don't I have pro? I don't know. I bought this stupid thing at Best Buy!
2) I'm trying to download a large file at home to get some work done and it's going at 20K/sec because Windows has decided it's time to update and destroy my bandwidth.
3) I'm in the middle of a game or some work and my computer just reboots because it has decided to update.
4) And of course: my computer updated and now my webcam doesn't work (this actually happened to me recently).
The crux of the problem may just be that Windows doesn't do updates very well. Regardless, the lack of choice and configuration is not, and should not, be a welcome "feature".
No worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Either figure out how to disable the Windows Update service starter or find the reg keys that are set in Pro or Enterprise and import them. MS won't have written an entirely different update program for Home, just hidden the buttons and check boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is a means to your apps (Score:2)
If they lock you out of the registry too, then one has to wonder why you'd even have this version of Windows in the first place. If you can't have 100% control over the hardware you own then what's the point of even having it?
I guess because bad Windows that runs your important applications is better than no Windows that does not run your important applications. Over time, hardware that ships with an older version of Windows will become hard to come by. And eventually, extended support for Windows 7 will end, leaving users with no way to run Internet-connected Windows-only applications that don't work in Wine.
Re: (Score:3)
> In any case you don't "own" the OS on your computer. You have a license to use it, which is different.
False. I wish people would stop believing and repeating this lie.
You actually OWN that COPY. What you do NOT have is the right to redistribute copies of that copy. If you buy it off the shelf, you OWN that copy just as much as you own that copy of the hardcover or paperback book you bought from Barnes & Noble or from Amazon. You can even resell it, providing you do not retain a copy for yourself (
Speculation (Score:3)
On the flip side (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flip side, I've always applied all my Windows updates except for driver updates whenever they came out. It's only the driver updates that have proven "iffy" in the past for me.
But I am going to miss doing those updates on my schedule, as I've always figured it's good to know that the updates were done so I can blame them if any issues should arise.
They also don't mention what's going to happen if you restore from a restore point -- will the update be automatically be re-applied, even though you restored because it caused you issues?
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, I've always applied all my Windows updates except for driver updates whenever they came out. It's only the driver updates that have proven "iffy" in the past for me.
The A/V oriented conference room PC's I supported were always getting hit by something. Day after updates was awful enough, that no important meetings were scheduled the day after rollout. MIcrosoft would sometimes remove a codec, or change a setting used by a program. Then you got to play "Where's Waldo" to find out how to fix it.
A lot of people get hit by an update resulting in an endless reboot cycle - we can sing the "This is the song that never ends" while it's doing this.
Windows 7 has had many upd
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry.. (Score:2, Informative)
It will be their PCs that blow up, not yours.
reminds me of another Microsoft product... (Score:2)
The XBox one. And its mandatory 'must call home everyday' procedures they had planned. At one point, Microsoft was even willing to forgo some military sales (XBox in entertainment rooms on US Navy battleships cannot 'call home everyday'). Thankfully, they nixed that. Hopefully they'll have a setting in Windows registry or something to turn this off. Even Update-Nazi apps like Google Chrome offer this (at least in Chromium).
Finally! This is good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
All OSes should fix security holes and update them. If you can't use the latest security updates, stay off the internet.
But in the real world, someone will publish a hack using hosts file to misdirect microsoft.com to unreachable ip address, and many will blindly search for, "security update broke my very old Adobe photo shop" find such hacks and install them blindly.
It is difficult to keep your home safe in a city filled with pyromaniacs.
Re:Finally! This is good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Then make the updates not an annoyance to install. Pretty much every Windows update requires a reboot. Usually, after installing fresh Windows on a PC I have to reboot multiple times installing updates.
Compare that to Linux - reboot only necessary for kernel updates (and it seems that the latest versions no longer need it), otherwise you just restart the affected service. And even without that, Linux services are quite secure (compare the major Linux bugs like Heartbleed with the number of major Windows bugs).
Also, not all security bugs affect me. For example, let's say there is a bug that would allow someone to hack my PC over WiFi. If my PC does not have WiFi card, I do not need the update.
security update broke my very old Adobe photo shop
Photoshop is expensive. If I buy it I will use the version as long as I can do what I need with it. Just like everything else. I am not buying a new TV if my current one is good enough for me. I also bought a new PC (and installed Windows 7 - I hate the Flat UI of Windows 8) because I wanted to play games that did not run on my old Windows XP PC. This happened before the end of support, not that I was installing lots of updates before - I really dislike rebooting my PC, so much so, that I have enough UPSs that can provide power for an hour in total and am considering buying a generator.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Microsoft's updates do occasionally (twice a year or so) break things I need. And rolling them back doesn't always unbreak them.
2) Not all Windows updates consist of security patches. How do you justify decreasing the security of a system by installing IE11 or Skype or the Bing toolbar, in the name of "your security hole is my problem too"?
3) Get Satya's dick out of your mouth, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well [krebsonsecurity.com] they [forbes.com] do break the OS. [zdnet.com] And I got tired after posting of the most visible instances.
Re: (Score:3)
Security is becoming more important than getting things done.
So what you are saying is you are okay with say, your boss having no presentation for the biggest meeting of the year. Because security trumps a room with a hundred 7 figure people watching nothing. Then again, a bricked computer is pretty secure.
You assume that people will stick with Microsoft when it simply doesn't work. Good luck with that idea.
This excuse of "this security update will break something I need" has been over used to keep security holes open. In this connected world, your security hole is my problem too.
And you blame it on the customer, not the creator of the security vulnerability. That is a completely reversed outlook.
Not many of us buy and use computers
Re:Finally! This is good policy (Score:4, Informative)
Security is becoming more important than getting things done. This excuse of "this security update will break something I need" has been over used to keep security holes open. In this connected world, your security hole is my problem too. It is like storing a 50 gallon drum of gasoline in your garage. You might have excellent reasons for doing so, but it is a fire hazard for the neighbors.
Except that Microsoft have recently been abusing the Windows 7 and Windows 8 update systems to spam Windows 10 to EVERY Windows user through an unremovable (without a registry hack) icon in the system tray. So if MS decides to abuse the update system again to do whatever they want to your system, you can't even stop them.
C'mon.... (Score:5, Informative)
...how many average Windows 10 HOME users would know if a patch breaks something so badly and that they would know how not not install it? If it's that bad and ubiquitous, MS will pull the patch. Tech savvier people will be either running a higher version, or know how to work around it.
This policy is really a non-issue; it's just geared towards the lowest common denominator--of which there are LOTS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The "Home" users who are the parents of people like us.
Users don't know what they're doing (Score:2)
and I mean it. They all say that they're protected because they have an antivirus, and that they don't need stinking updates because "they will break something" or "I don't want more crap installed".
Talking friend into installing security updates is a chore. Updates that patch over a buffer overflow or similar don't break things either. Well at least the security updates don't break things in Windows 7 and if they did : does anyone install them one by one, then reboot, then test the computer for some time?
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never seen a Windows system that was broken by an update. (I've heard there have been some bad updates, but I've never known anyone who's encountered problems because of them.) On the other hand, I've seen people keep clicking the button to postpone updates for months or even years; when something goes wrong with their computer, it can take hours of downloading/installing updates to bring it up-to-date to make sure that the problem isn't something that's been fixed already.
For the vast majority of Windows Home users who use their computers for web/email/Word, I think it's great to keep them up-to-date, mandatory. For anyone who's truly concerned about this, I suspect someone will find a registry edit that'll provide the deferred update behavior.
Data loss on restart (Score:2)
For the vast majority of Windows Home users who use their computers for web/email/Word, I think it's great to keep them up-to-date, mandatory.
That'd be fine if all applications could restart without data loss, mandatory. Many applications will lose changes to the active documents since the user last committed changes. The button to manually commit changes to a new document for the first time usually requires coming up with a name for the document and putting it in some folder. Because most applications are unable to come up with a title and location automatically, Windows instead automatically clicks the "Discard Changes" button when restarting.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't know about Windows, because I really only use Windows for games; but my Mac refuses to quit Safari if I've typed text into a field, and it refuses to reboot the OS if an app refuses to quit. I've always liked this behavior and it's saved my bacon on a few occasions. I'm surprised that Windows doesn't do this, but maybe because of the mandatory updates they'll fix Windows to stop clicking "Discard Changes"?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a satellite. ;-)
I've never seen a bacteria.
I've never seen you, and heard that you exist
"I've never seen" is not a valid argument.
I did see problems caused by a Windows update.
Those have been documented, for example:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c... [sophos.com]
http://borncity.com/win/2014/1... [borncity.com]
Still, I agree with you that there seems to be more problems with non-updated, zombified Windows machines, than there is by updates. At least so far...
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
It's my belief and hope that Microsoft may put more care into the patches they release, now that they know the impact of a bad patch could be much more broad.
Also, given that the majority of Windows 10 users should now remain up-to-date on patches, maybe this means fewer configurations to have to test. (Or maybe not, since there may still be Pro and Enterprise users who keep deferring patches for years, but I don't think there will be as many of them.)
Benefits outweigh the costs ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a huge fan of mandated updates, and this will probably bite Microsoft in the behind if any of those updates make noticeable changes to the end user, but it is probably for the best over all.
The typical argument that I hear is that updates break things. This is undoubtedly true, but how often does it actually happen (proportionally speaking)? If it doesn't happen very often, then the benefits carried by security updates will outweigh the inconvenience.
Some people will claim that they like reviewing updates or backing out of updates that cause problems. For the Slashdot crowd, this is probably true. For the average user though, I have to question the validity of that argument. Now I will take a quick glance at the updates performed on my Linux installation. On Windows, I gave up. Microsoft makes it incredibly inconvenient to do this, since most updates require clicking through to a KB article for anything beyond a generic description (and by generic, I mean that it doesn't even tell you what part of the system is being updated). Couple that with the large number of updates, and it is rarely even worth while to conduct a cursory review. And that is from the perspective of a technically oriented user. Similarly for backing out of updates: how many users even have the ability to isolate an update as the cause of a problem? Even for technical users, it is usually just correlating an update with the onset of a problem with no technical reason to back that hypothesis.
Ideally, Microsoft would say security updates are mandatory and anything else (including bug fixes) are optional. Realistically, I don't think Microsoft's going to do that. They have too much riding upon appearing progressive, which is hard to do when users consistently refuse to update their products. Forced updates may be a nasty way to change that perception, and has a good chance of backfiring, but to them it is probably better than the status quo.
Re: (Score:3)
"Update" is just a weasel word. We want them to use either (feature) "upgrades" or "bug fixes." Update is just a vague term used to mean upgrades and/or bug fixes. While bug fixes are welcome, upgrades should be reviewed by the user before installation. We don't want useless, bloated upgrades that hog system resources forcing you to buy new hardware every two years.
Sounds like the best idea (Score:3)
Is not to "upgrade" to Win 10 in the first place
Easy enough (Score:3)
Hosts file pointing anything going to update to localhost until you're ready to install them. No, we shouldn't have to do that but if they want to fuck with my control over my system I can fuck back.
Home machines should be updated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...from a practical standpoint, this just makes sense....
My concern is not about the updates occurring automatically.
.
My concern is about the low quality of recent updates from Microsoft.
Easy fix (Score:5, Funny)
Windows 10 Home users don't seem to have any way to disable automatic updates to the operating system.
Can't they just install the Samsung Update utility?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Easy to block windows update (Score:3)
Simple PAC file to make windows update think there's nothing to find. With a little work, you can block individual files too.
Disk space (Score:2)
Windows update needs to be fixed (Score:2)
The good news is... we don't *have to* install it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Up to about the time Windows 8 was released, there was this common wisdom and even fear, that every new Windows version Microsoft poops out "must be installed at any cost". Slowly, however, we have transitioned to a world where most people don't feel this compulsion anymore. We live in the post-Windows 8 world - one where people are becoming aware that Windows 7 is good enough. In fact, some even believe that Windows XP is good enough, and don't particularly care to upgrade.
Sure, a lot of nerds who like to fiddle around with their computer, will in fact upgrade to Windows 10, but those who don't can feel rather comfortable that nothing catastrophic will happen.
Easy to Cripple (Score:2)
One could just edit their hosts file and "reroute" MS update servers, no?
Microsoft needs to up its QA game then (Score:3)
.
There have been far too many Windows Update problems lately, with serious ramifications for those experiencing those problems.
The last thing I want to happen to my PC is for it to be bricked by a Windows Update that occurred "without any additional notice".
Trust me, this is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of you run a small tech support department for your entire computer-illiterate extended family? How many times have you come into a situation to find a Windows XP SP1 laptop with no antivirus, logged on as the local administrator account, with all the data eaten by CryptoLocker?
This is why Microsoft is making updates to the Home edition of Windows 10 mandatory. PCs that are patched and not running 5000 phishing toolbars have less of a chance of being part of a botnet. This is also the key differentiator between Home and Pro. Pro users can join a domain, control their own updates, and run whatever they want. Home users are protected from themselves. The average idiot who buys the $299 PC from Best Buy is not concerned with managing their own updates, or to some extent how the machine even works. I sometimes do on the side work for local small businesses, and you wouldn't believe how many of them have all their vital business records stored on one of the 10-pound, 17", 2007-era blinged-out consumer laptops complete with bright blue LEDs and chrome stripes down the side. Invariably, they're running XP Home Edition because that's what it came with, and why spend any more money on it??
In my opinion this is a good thing. The mobile boom has basically made end user computing available to everyone. Computers aren't just geek toys anymore, and some people don't see much difference between their phone, tablet and PC. Phones (Apple and Android) are a walled garden -- people don't expect to be able to do anything the carrier or OS manufacturer doesn't let them do. Blame Apple or Google if you want, but this is the new trend in end user systems. Locked down is the norm for the average user, the power user can still have the Pro version.
The thing to watch is to make sure this stays in the Home camp and that they don't start forcing Pro users down this path.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a Good Idea.... somewhat (Score:5, Insightful)
That same issue is shared at my work, where we already have this system of forced updates. I'll be working and notice the computer progressively getting slower, and slower..... to the point where I can't open documents, pull something from the network drive, or read email. Why? Because it's updating in the background while I'm trying to work.
Then, of course, there are the forced emergency security updates. The ones where I leave my desk for a meeting with a bunch of stuff open, and return to my desk with a rebooted computer because IT pushed an emergency patch.
These are all problems that can be solved, but the tech industry has chosen NOT to solve them. Limit background transfers to a 100kB a second. Don't update while users are working. Don't reboot while things are open. Yet they ignore all that. THAT's where they're really out of touch.
MS just can't win (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What if I do not want to restart my computer? Windows updates seem to require that for every update (compared to Linux, where only kernel updates require a reboot, normally you just restart the affected service(s)).
However, there is probably going to be a way around it - disabling the update service for example.
Restarting services in use by the GUI session (Score:2)
Linux, where only kernel updates require a reboot
Kernel updates on Windows also require a reboot. It's just that Patch Tuesday usually includes at least one kernel update.
normally you just restart the affected service(s)
If you have to restart the "graphics drivers" service or the "login" service or the "SSL support" service, wouldn't you need to log out all user sessions for that? That'd be just as interrupting as a restart, which is why Ubuntu has often requested restarts for important updates to OpenSSL.
Re: (Score:2)
I updated OpensSSL and only restarted the services that use SSL - apache, exim etc.
As for others, it depends on the vulnerability in question and whether I am affected.
1. Does it require an open incoming port to the outside? No problem, my router also works as a firewall and I have disabled the IPv6 tunnels from Windows.
2. Does it allow a local user to gain admin rights? No problem my single local user is an admin, I am not going to hack my own PC.
Windows 7 can reload graphics drivers if they crash, so I gu
Unsaved changes in GUI apps (Score:2)
I updated OpensSSL and only restarted the services that use SSL - apache, exim etc.
Are there any graphical applications that include OpenSSL? Graphical applications usually can't just be automatically restarted without potentially causing the user to lose unsaved changes. Or do graphical applications use NSS or GNU TLS instead?
Elevating without a UAC prompt (Score:2)
2. Does it allow a local user to gain admin rights? No problem my single local user is an admin
Rephrased: Does it allow a local user to gain admin rights without reentering the password for elevation or at least clicking through a highly visible dialog box? If so, lurking malware could elevate and infect system files that way. I imagine that vulnerabilities in the login service would be highly likely to allow this.
SSL support - wouldn't that only need restarting the programs that use SSL - browsers, email etc leaving my notepad, MS Word etc open?
That depends on to what extent Microsoft Word interacts with online backup and version control stuff like OneDrive.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it allow a local user to gain admin rights without reentering the password for elevation or at least clicking through a highly visible dialog box?
So, it will be just like Windows XP or newer versions with UAC disabled? Well, it was good enough with XP...
That depends on to what extent Microsoft Word interacts with online backup and version control stuff like OneDrive.
What if my version of Office is old enough to not have that? I have backups, the backups are made of the entire hard drive (with exceptions like page file) and do not depend on any software other than the backup service.
Re: (Score:2)
Then choose the "update then reboot manually" option. Or don't use the home edition of this OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make the entire folder read-only. Done.
And exactly what folder would that be in Windows? I'm guessing they download to some sort of temporary folder, then install to places largely in %windir%, particularly %windir%/system32 (and the WoW64 equivalent). But good luck with that--and even if that's right and doesn't break regular usage, updates are going to install elevated anyway and can do whatever they want, including turning off a read only flag.
But this begs the question: what kind of anal retentive asshole would not want to receive Windows security updates? Why is this even an issue? If I upgrade to Windows 10, I want every security update the second it comes out. Sooner, if possible.
Security updates, sure. But Microsoft has traditionally divided Windows Updates into two categories
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The kind that doesn't like his computer breaking randomly because MS decided they knew better for him than he did.
It's been many years since a Windows update broke one of my computers.
Now, I do know it happens every once in a while, but rarely.
But going forward Windows updates are tested by many more people then in the past due to the ongoing Insider program.
So the likelyhood of a Windows update breaking productive systems should go down.
On the other hand, Windows users that don't install security update because it is inconvenient and who put not only themselves but other people as well in jeopardy are aplenty.
Re: (Score:2)
So, there has never been an incident where an automatically installed Windows update made the computer unbootable?
Re: (Score:3)
Windows has a recovery partition or external boot and it has restore points for updates from the last 7 days. A user who knows enough to decide which updates to install can work from there. Any user who knows enough to decide which updates to install should also be regularly backing up.
Re: There are always options. (Score:3, Informative)
Windows updates regularly break stuff for people who have unusual non-mainstream peripherals, like scientific devices, specialized astronomy cameras, cnc machine tools, etc. If you are a routine user I buy your argument, but simply put, not everyone is.
And, "it only breaks once every few years" is good enough for some things, but not others. When a forced update breaks something important, maybe a bank or a train system, watch the debates begin in earnest.
Anti-hosts mechanisms in recent Windows (Score:2)
Since Windows 8, Windows Defender has treated changes to %windir%\System32\Drivers\etc\hosts as possible infections, because they often are [howtogeek.com], unless the administrator adds the file to a list of files that Windows Defender will not monitor. And I imagine that DNSSEC validating resolvers will skip the hosts file because entries aren't signed.
Varying the hostname of the update server (Score:2)
It is trivial to block the appropriate sites/addresses on your router.
So long as the gateway appliance that you own either A. includes this feature or B. is powerful enough (CPU, RAM, storage) and open enough (no code signing that the user cannot override) to run a third-party firmware that includes this feature. Also, so long as the update service doesn't continuously vary the hostname of the update server, such as changing the digits in "upd9318.update.example.com". I imagine that a built-in blocking feature on an entry-level home gateway appliance is less likely to include