Microsoft Says Windows May Need Up To 8 Hours of Online Time To Update (tomshardware.com) 124
According to a post on the Microsoft IT Pro Blog, Windows computers will need at least eight hours of online time to obtain and install the latest OS updates successfully. Tom's Hardware reports: Another revelation in the post is that Microsoft tracks how long PCs are connected to Windows Update, calling the statistics "Update Connectivity." The data is available to IT managers in the InTune app, a component of the Endpoint management suite. The post details Microsoft's attempts to figure out why some Windows devices aren't getting the latest quality and feature updates, and discovered that two hours of continuous connectivity was required to get updates. It then took six hours after the release of the patch for a machine to update itself reliably.
Microsoft's figures show that 50 percent of Windows devices left behind by Windows Update and running a build of Windows 10 that's no longer serviced do not spend enough time connected to have the patches downloaded and installed in the background. This figure drops to 25 percent for customers using a serviced build of the operating system that lags behind in security updates by 60 days or more. The goods news, as noted by Tom's Hardware, is that "Windows 11 updates are smaller than their Windows 10 counterparts due to improved compression [and] new Microsoft Graph APIs," which should help speed up the update process.
Microsoft's figures show that 50 percent of Windows devices left behind by Windows Update and running a build of Windows 10 that's no longer serviced do not spend enough time connected to have the patches downloaded and installed in the background. This figure drops to 25 percent for customers using a serviced build of the operating system that lags behind in security updates by 60 days or more. The goods news, as noted by Tom's Hardware, is that "Windows 11 updates are smaller than their Windows 10 counterparts due to improved compression [and] new Microsoft Graph APIs," which should help speed up the update process.
Can I be the first to say. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
During which time the machine cannot be used. WTF.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that is background download time. Perhaps Microsoft only allows each connection a tiny data rate, and it more of an administration/resources problem that a Windows OS problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can I be the first to say. (Score:4, Informative)
Its not really anything new. It used to be that if you installed Windows fresh, from say the CD the computer came with, you have to download potentially hundreds of updates. Now each one of those updates didn't take long but collectively they did take a while. But once you were up to date, Windows Update would only deliver the specific updates that you needed moving forward. At some point Microsoft moved to Cumulative Updates so you get one download that contains all of the history, but of course its bigger as a single update. Microsoft releases that Cumulative update monthly. No wonder it takes longer than in the past. But really I think its probably more about infrastructure and bandwidth limits. Also, Windows can be setup to pull updates from other computers on the LAN that already have them.
You can always find the updates, download them, and install them manually. I'll bet its faster than Windows Update.
https://www.catalog.update.mic... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with the cumulative update when I do install a fresh computer, but for a computer that only needs a few since last time it's a headache for anyone with a slow or spotty internet connection.
Microsoft has done a lot of not so smart things throughout their presence, some of them have been resulting in things like "Melissa" and "SQL Slammer".
And it seems to come in waves as well, so maybe it's that each time Microsoft has a generation shift then similar mistakes are repeated.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked a year on a Windows PC behind a "corporate black network". When going "public", Windows update (the Windows XP days as I remember) took about half a day.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read TFA, you will notice that the first sentence contradicts the headline. This is a clear case of incompetent journalism.
So you should delay your outrage until you can confirm the "eight-hour installation" from a reliable source.
Re:Can I be the first to say. (Score:4, Informative)
I once needed a new "Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable" version.
I downloaded and installed it. It took THREE HOURS to install on a machine with a fast CPU and SSD. I verified that this is, in fact, the expected amount of time to do this.
This shit *is* indeed this insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I think it's data rate. It's absurdly slow even on a fast computer with a high speed connection.
Re: (Score:2)
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can I be the first to say. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's with a solid state drive. Imagine the time required for a 5400 rpm platter drive. What takes the process so long? You can install Ubuntu probably 20-30 times from scratch in 8 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's with a solid state drive. Imagine the time required for a 5400 rpm platter drive. What takes the process so long? You can install Ubuntu probably 20-30 times from scratch in 8 hours.
And pull down all the patches each time.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
- install ubuntu that's a 2 years old and isn't an LTS
- ***throttle your downloads for apt-get so that no one on your network would notice the data usage***
- - Windows defaults that to 2.6 Mbps so do that. Mbps, not MBps
- turn your machine on and use it for 2 hours
- turn it off
You're telling me that it would fully update and upgrade to the latest release?
Re: (Score:2)
It will come close at least. Windows does patch after patch after patch on on the same item. Linux just goes to the latest version in one go.
Upgrading to the latest distro version is more comparable to a new version of Windows, not normal updating.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what pissed me off so much about Windows. I would have updates that would take hours sometimes, while linux could always update within minutes. I don't miss moving on from windows.
Re: Can I be the first to say. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What takes so long? Having 100s of GIGABYTES of executable code in an operating system. That's what.
The bloat was astonishing a decade ago. Now it's just embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
8 hours is on the low end.
Try provisioning a Windows 7 machine from scratch today - yes I know Windows 7 is out of date, but you'll probably spend 24 hours of checking updates and downloading and installing updates. If you install the rollup pack, it brings it down to about half that.
What makes it worse is that you can't just click "get me every damn update" - you have to get a bunch of updates, let it install, reboot, then click check updates again, get more updates, install, click again, get more updates,
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been living under a rock? This is why you keep a WSUS OFFLINE update ISO around for win7 and do it all without Internet
Re: (Score:2)
8 hours to update? Just updating? Seriously? WTF
No not seriously. 8 hours on a very slow connection to download and provision the update. For me, the time taken between hitting the install now button and actually having Windows 11 running was less than an hour. During that time I kept using my computer for above 40min.
In other news: Downloading requires you to be online.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: it takes me 20 minutes to install Debian Linux 10 from the network with a network installation ISO and start browsing the Internet after installing uBlock Origin and NoScript add-ons. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Massive improvement.
I once did a factory reset on a Surface tablet, and it took over 36 hours to re-update.
Re: (Score:2)
8 hours to update? Just updating? Seriously? WTF
Microsoft is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies thrive on "binding" (i.e. wasting) the time of others and measure their importance by how much hours of others they can so control. And bureaucracies always want more and never produce solid results when they actually do work themselves.
Re: Can I be the first to say.. (Score:2)
A Good Test For Bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One man's bloat is another man's critical feature.
pacman -Syyuu (Score:1)
Gets the job done in a few minutes. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
even when I update my debian from one stable to the next stable, it does not take 8 hours. It takes, maybe 2 hours.
WTF are they doing?
8 hour window (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Windows update is sparse with BW... (Score:2)
Maybe too sparse for developed countries like the US.
But here in Venezuela, my BW is 14Mbps down, 750Mps up. windows Update has never been a problem in terms of the machine hogging the net connection.
I do not like the stream on my TV interrupted/freezed by a computer updating, nor my other machines (or phones) become unable to browse the net because one machine is hoging the net for an update (like it happens to me when any of my two macs update).
Having said that, yes, the update mechanism somehow renders t
It is and has been an issue for some time. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you can install just about any version of Linux faster than 8 hours and then you'll never run into the forced update again. Heck, you can probably do a clean install of any OS, including Windows, in less than 8 hours.
Re:It is and has been an issue for some time. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just updates. I've occasionally turned on a Win10 machine after leaving it dormant for a few months, and the system is locked up solid for literally a couple hours until it finishes doing things in the background. Once, it took several minutes just to launch Notepad. The trouble is, the machines do this even while the Internet is disconnected.
No wonder updates are so slow. The background maintenance tasks go out of their way to look for problems that aren't there when nothing has changed.
Re: It is and has been an issue for some time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My windows machine gets turned on for about an hour, maybe two, each morning, four hours Friday afternoons and a few hours on Saturday. Inevitably, one of the times each week I turn it on, it's unusable for several minutes to an hour and a half. Which is really frustrating when I have limited time and want to accomplish something with it.
If I could get Scrivener and PDF PRO working on Linux, I'd stay on that partition permanently.
Failure (Score:4, Interesting)
If it takes 8 hours to get an "update", you have failed. Miserably. It is wholly incomprehensible to claim this is the norm. Not in the 21st century. Are they pushing it out via dial-up?
On the other hand, seeing how slow Windows 10 is at doing the simplest of tasks, this shouldn't be surprising. Want to log into a machine for the first time? Go get a drink. Want to restart your machine? Go get a book. It is excruciating how slow 10 is. It's always preparing to do something, telling you this might take a while, telling you to wait while it spins it hamster wheel. Rarely does it just do something.
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes 8 hours to get an "update", you have failed.
I guess Linux is a failure then. It took me 8 hours to download it back before I got cable as well.
Hint: No it doesn't take 8 hours to update. Windows update doesn't start downloading until your computer has been up for a significant period of time, and with low background priority will use very little bandwidth.
When you don't piss off the user by saturation their connection while they are trying to use the PC, except the update to take a while. That isn't a failure. It is the very definition of respectful
Business ?? (Score:1, Flamebait)
What about businesses, is M/S asking for 8 hours of downtime for their Business Customers ?
I thought my Work workstation running RHEL forcing a reboot after a chrome patch was bad (I found a workaround for this). But this shows RHEL an other distros are far more sane then what Windows is pushing out. Not that I needed proof :)
I wonder what the cost to the S&P 500 will be for this ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RHEL forcing a reboot after a chrome patch?
Chrome is Google's web browser. Why in the world would it require a reboot? Just close and re-open your web browser and you're all set.
There are a few occasions when you need to reboot after an update, but Chrome isn't one of them. (And even when you do need to reboot you can usually do it at your convenience, it isn't "forced".)
Re: (Score:2)
What about businesses, is M/S asking for 8 hours of downtime for their Business Customers ?
Did you read the summary let alone the article?
No where does it discuss 8 hours of down time.
8 hours of ONLINE time in order to background download the patches without disrupting their net connection if you're not using a local SCCM patch server.
If your users only turn on their desktops for an hour or two a day (eg light admin usage) and then turn them off they might never get patched fully.
The same exact thing will happen with RHEL if you don't patch it for 1.5 years and then pull down patches in a throttl
Re: Business ?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, let me make clear that I think it is best if computers run on fully updated software.
But being a Devil's advocate here:
Are those systems that are turned on an hour or so a day a really big security risk? As long as they are turned off, they are not part of any botnet. Even if those computers were infected, I mean.
Computers that are not turned on for very long periods of time, do usually a specific task and not much more. This also reduces risk of possible infections.
In short, is this not perce
they've gotta be pulling my leg (Score:2)
Continuation of the Mind Boggle (Score:2)
What is structurally different between Linux and Windows here?
I've never been able to figure out why both checking and installing updates takes so long on Windows. Say you have 5000 components, surely you send a packet with 5000 id/version pairs and get a response as to which can be upgraded. Even with complicated interdependencies, how does solving this take more than a few milliseconds on a modern CPU in their update server farm? Is it something to do with Windows being unable to replace binaries on disk
Atomic replacement of system libraries (Score:2)
The biggest structural difference I can think of is that Linux and applications for Linux are designed to tolerate deleting a file while it is open. If a file is deleted and replaced, processes that already had that file open continue to see the previous file, whereas newly started processes that open the file see a new file. The old file is actually deleted once the last process closes it. This lets package managers use rename-and-replace on system libraries. Processes continue running with the old version
Re: (Score:2)
And good luck if the replaced-while-running component needs to communicate with other instances of itself (like resource sharing, or updating the same database file) and the versions are incompatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I would say the older approach (UNIX) is better, but the folks at MS probably do not even know what UNIX did and Linux does now because they are far too full of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
An example from Windows history.
The TCP/IP component had help files, so depended on the Help system being installed.
The Help system needed to display HTML to the user, so depended on Internet Explorer being installed.
Internet Explorer needed network access, so depended on TCP/IP being installed.
If you need to update all of those, which do you do first?
Unwinding that type of spaghetti from Windows was (and probably still is) a major project at MS, reworking Windows into distinct layers progressively.
https:// [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Structural differences between them are legion. Linux has a kernel design - one small monolithic executable that runs the hardware (loading drivers, talking to hardware, etc.) in kernel space while everything else - as much as humanly possible - is in user space. You can replace anything in user space while the system is up.
Microsoft has a massive executable footprint in kernel space - device drivers, etc. too, but also the UI, web browser, all the shared libraries that all the other applications use, etc
What do MSFT updates look like? (Score:2)
Holy cow. My routine Debian updates take minutes, counting both download time and time to apply the updates. Even going from Buster to Bullseye was maybe 30 minutes of download time and an hour to apply.
What the heck does the Windows update architecture look like to take that long?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And that is including all the applications, not just the core OS.
If only we could download a Service Pack ... (Score:2)
If only there was a way to download a cumulative set of updates as one big update. I nominate we call it a Service Pack. Shame that we don't have the technology for this advanced feature. /s
Normal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not normal. It's a worst case scenario for a failure of the update process to start. "Normal" is your computer asking you to reboot, and being greeted with Windows 11 up and running 10-15min later. That's how 99.9% of upgrades happen.
Re: (Score:2)
> We've normalized this
You know what slashdot, FUCK your lameness filter.
So MUCH this. When you start using different non-windows-based OSes and take a couple of steps back from what you have to-now considered "normal" you realize a few things:
Windows is a shitshow and has been for YEARS
MS is an abusive company that doesn't care about your uptime or productivity
They FIRED their ENTIRE QA team YEARS ago
8 hours (Score:2)
Expect more and more people to Google for patches/hacks to stop auto updating thus not getting the patches at all.
If it takes 8 hours, then something is really fucked up with the Windows ecosystem.
And of course, that huge amount of bloat will require more future patches and updates to fix everything that's broken.
Stick a fork in it, it's done. It's so bloated and archaic now that not even a team of M$'s programmers really understand how the OS works anymore. Now the only options left are to leave Windows as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 8 hours (Score:2)
I remember a time when what is now called "telemetry" was refered to as "stalking".
Upgrades should be for features / stability (Score:2)
So that user perceives value and makes time to install them. We need to handle "or else you will get hacked and have to pay ransom" in some other way. Most users run a small number of local apps, so those can be either prescreened by a reputable app store or open source and open to public scrutiny. If you are running a business, you can be required to buy malpractice/negligence insurance to be listed in app store, and insurance can take interest in your practices. If you are not interested in running busine
The new Singularity (Score:2)
Sounds Good (Score:3)
8 hours during which Windows won't nag me about restarting to install updates? I'll take it.
fixed that for you (Score:2)
Microsoft's programmers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> Microsoft's programmers live in an alternate reality where they ...
Assume the point of the computer is running windows/MS products, it is never turned off (let alone for longer periods), has permanent broadband connectivity and the user uses it exactly how they thought up the "flow"
You can substitute any other sw company name for Microsoft, it would still work.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the things that I have seen with Microsoft's post-Metro user interfaces, I have seen nowhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh stop it with the horseshit. Microsoft programmers know what they are doing and do it *because* of their customers. The reason it takes 8 hours on a slow connection is precisely because the update process throttles back the download while the user is using their PC, it also runs the upgrade process itself in the lowest system priority allowing a user to happily use their computer for 7hours and 50min of this 8 hour period (which MS quotes as a worst case).
When you're done talking out of your arse join us
Re: (Score:2)
Oh stop it with the horseshit. Microsoft programmers know what they are doing and do it *because* of their customers.
You mean that they rebooted my computer without a warning and without my consent, causing me to lose my work, in order to install a completely undocumented "update", *because* they knew that they'd upset me?
I don't think this is the case, though. You're being too harsh to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that they rebooted my computer without a warning and without my consent
No it's 2022 meaning you're a dumbass who wasn't paying attention. Windows introduced warnings that sit in your notification telling you when it reboot as well as instructions on how to set your active hours back in 2018. If Windows has at all interrupted your work at any point in the past 4 years it's literally 100% *your* fault.
Learn how to use your computer. It's simple, all you have to do is look at a popup.
Re: Microsoft's programmers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you have a point of course, and besides, in Windows 11 the notification area has been turned into a laparoscopy device with room for one or two notifications, that gets quickly clogged by the stream of useless alerts that Windows itself generates. A priceless one is "there's nothing wrong with your computer", that Windows Defender or whatever it is called now spits out periodically.
I guess that they
Re: (Score:2)
While true, the 2nd half of the problem is customers that take the abuse and ask for more. If MS became adequate feedback for all the time and effort of others they have been wasting, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. Instead, they can basically do whatever they like to their customers now and never suffer any consequences.
BITS to BUTS (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
The goods news, as noted by Tom's Hardware, is that "Windows 11 updates are smaller than their Windows 10 counterparts due to improved compression [and] new Microsoft Graph APIs," which should help speed up the update process.
So, this tell me that they need to make there shit better.
dependency checking? (Score:2)
Is it possible that the problem, much like the problem with Make, is that full dependency checking is an exponential problem?
...what? (Score:2)
How is that a sane update process?
I don't think I've had the displeasure of using Windows for 8 hours in the last year... cumulatively.
I don't miss dealing with this kind of hostility.
No surprise! (Score:2)
As a tech helper at my local library, I often dealt with computers that had not been run for 6 months at a time. I always advise people "Plug it in, connect to the internet and leave it on overnight, watch it when it first starts and if it asks "Do you want to install this update?" click Yes. Check it in the morning ... and possibly do it all again the next night. Once it is done, it should run OK. If it bogs down again: rinse & repeat!
I'm typing this on a desktop running Xubuntu ...
Re: two hours of continuous connectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Well this is a really dumb hot take. You exaggerate but a literal Intel Core 2 Duo running Linux wouldn't takes hours to update. However, people with fairly modern hardware are still having to wait hours for updates to complete. The primary issue is the Windows registry access and modifications. It was a bad design 30 years ago and all the design flaws have only metastasized. No idea why you think you need to reboot Linux after an update unless you are updating your kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
However, people with fairly modern hardware are still having to wait hours for updates to complete.
No they aren't. The overwhelming majority of activities occur in the background while you can very much continue to use your computer. Even on my several year old slow laptop which only just meets the minimum system requirements the computer was out of provision rebooting for about 15min. My desktop was out for less than 10.
Stop it with the shitty hyperbole. Just like a modern Linux system a lot of the "upgrade" happens in the background while the user is using their PC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hyperbole at all. My own father complained about windows 10 not booting because it had been stuck at an update screen for over an hour before he turned it off. The information about the time required comes directly from Microsoft, so don't claim I'm making it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bruh, maybe if we were talking about a Windows 10 upgrade from a few years ago you'd be relevant. Come join us in 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, your snide remark is wasted for they are referring to Windows 10 updating which is the very thing my father was dealing with: https://techcommunity.microsof... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No idea why you think you need to reboot Linux after an update unless you are updating your kernel.
Or updating init (especially on systemd distributions). Or updating X11 on workstations. Or updating a userspace library that practically everything on your machine uses. There was a time when OpenSSL was getting a lot of serious security updates, I think around the Heartbleed era (second quarter 2014). To ensure that long-running background processes linked to libssl were restarted, Ubuntu had the "needs reboot" flag set for these updates.
Even if there is a way to restart some of these long-running userspa
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, init can actually reload itself (new binary and everything) without rebooting. I'm sure it's the same with systemd (it's not something I use) because rebooting servers uncommon. Reloading X11 does require logging out, which I think is a poor design but maybe they'll fix it with wayland since X11 is rarely updated. There's no real harm in waiting until it's convenient to do so. Upgrading dependencies of any deamon will automatically trigger a reload after installation, so it's really quite rare to e
Re: (Score:2)
wasnt talking about a core2 running linux, a core2 running windows 10 on dialup, please keep up
Re: (Score:2)
You're about as useful as a knife without an edge.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry your reading compression is non existent and your knee jerk reaction is to constantly call people names. its not our fault you are an illiterate stupid shit
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck would you restart linux just because you received some OS updates? Are you just stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Because kernel security updates are easily applied by restarting on 99% of linux machines. Why wouldn't you restart your computer? Do you get a hardon when you run the uptime command and don't want your masturbation streak to end?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you haven't rebooted for a year, you installed hundreds of updates during that time, you finally reboot... and it fails.
Which update do you rollback?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. If the update installed systemd for the first time it may be easier to just set it on fire and start again ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
cause I am just a user, it installs updates and says it wants to restart, I hit ok, do you seriously think anyone is going to look though 192 updates and manually restart each and every service they touch?
Re: (Score:2)
I can absolutely understand your pain. Now imagine this: I'm using Windows only for making music, because a lot of VST audio plugin developers make them either only for Windows or in many cases for Mac, too. It takes about a week [!] to install and register all the audio programs and plugins. I don't upgrade nor update for fun, because it is hell, not fun. Therefore I still use W7 and I'm *considering* upgrade to W8.1, or W10 *LTSC* because some developers whos plugins I use started making only W8 and W10 c