Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 567 posts

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#501

Post by a_imho »

freehunter wrote: post #470
a_imho wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to ensure people are using the latest version is to stop giving them a choice. You can't always rely on people making the best choice for themselves. Agree with the first part, the second needs a very twisted definition of best or themselves. Offer something people want and they will upgrade. This alone tells very much about the win10 situation. Microsoft game is lock-in, if the cost of leaving their gar…

I have a friend who buys $20 shoes. They last him a year, and then he has to buy another pair of shoes. He laughs when I buy $70 shoes, but those $70 shoes last me four years. Over that four year period, he's spent $80 on shoes and I spent $70. I have a friend who buys $500 laptops. They last him a year, and then he has to buy another laptop. He laughs when I buy $1000 laptops, but those $1000 laptops last me three y…

Windows comes preinstalled on most PCs, you are being disingenuous if you say that is not a major factor. MS was ruled to violate antitrust laws regarding web browsers. How is that for a lock in if you can just download Netscape?

The arguments against switching come down to "I hate Apple/Linux"

Not at all. Many people are forced to use MS software, they don't have a choice. Not just running Windows, but using various MS Office apps, formats, Skype etc.

Also, there are others (mainly elderly) who are only familiar with Windows, learning another platform is not a freebie for everyone.

Most apps people need have alternatives on other platforms, but there are many - besides games, that target Windows only. Well, VS being the bloatware it is, not one of them of course.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#502

Post by newman314 »

I think a lot of this is because people do not want to lose saved work. If Windows was to offer the ability to restore file state, that would be something that would help people keep Windows updates on.

MacOS has been doing this for some time and while it's not perfect, it's definitely led me to be less concerned about rebooting my Macs.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#503

Post by oefrha »

Jach wrote: post #449
zeta0134 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if Windows Update worked like Linux updates tend to, I would leave them on 100% of the time. On just about every Linux system, I can upgrade the entire operating system and all the packages all at once without a reboot. Sure, the kernel does get updated from time to time, but the system is in no hurry to force the new kernel to load right away, and just switches to it at the next reboot. By contrast, every…

Rebooting in the middle of a game or what have you is the worst feature. It happened with 7 too but was easier to disable (and doesn't get re-enabled when you update anything). It makes me think that malware often tends to be more respectful of your computer than Microsoft. Sure there are cryptolockers, but if you have backups those are an inconvenience. Keyloggers? Bloody drivers ship with them now. Becoming part of…

It's simply hilarious to see Windows Update force rebooting machines in the middle of professional games.

Basically, a computer running Windows is actually owned by the Microsoft overlord who can do whatever the hell it wants to do. Occasionally it allows you to use the computer at its mercy.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#504

Post by bigbugbag »

setq wrote: post #231
bigbugbag wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend that booted her computer to windows 7, logged into gmail and facebook, had to leave her computer to care for her little kid and came back to her computer in the middle of windows 10 installation. She had seen no warning whatsoever. A client had started a time consuming process before leaving the office, came back the following morning with the process having failed due to windows applying updates and…

I very much doubt she had no warning. You got two warnings and had to opt out. She probably just clicked through them. Check the event log and scheduler logs. It will have the event in there saying the user consented to it. I had to find this on a machine after a user complained it didn't tell him and it clearly did and he clicked through. > I don't know what you mean by "this has to be done", there is no obligation…

You can doubt but maybe direct the doubt at the ability of window to deliver a consistent experience across every machine and configuration. She's computer literate and know when she gets nagged by windows, at best it could have been that the warning came and went while she was not in front of the screen.

There was no event log or logs of any kind, her system got entirely replaced by win10. For this specific case I would tend to not trust the log anyways. What I do find strange is that the windows 10 installation process should have asked to accept the EULA before installing, it did not and went on as if it was an unattended installation.

Good luck trying to explain people that they have to forfeit their freedom because they have to behave like good citizen. Anyways windows update is barely relevant here as the common vector used for botnet infection is almost always the user, not windows vulnerability.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#505

Post by khedoros1 »

freehunter wrote: post #470
a_imho wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to ensure people are using the latest version is to stop giving them a choice. You can't always rely on people making the best choice for themselves. Agree with the first part, the second needs a very twisted definition of best or themselves. Offer something people want and they will upgrade. This alone tells very much about the win10 situation. Microsoft game is lock-in, if the cost of leaving their gar…

I have a friend who buys $20 shoes. They last him a year, and then he has to buy another pair of shoes. He laughs when I buy $70 shoes, but those $70 shoes last me four years. Over that four year period, he's spent $80 on shoes and I spent $70. I have a friend who buys $500 laptops. They last him a year, and then he has to buy another laptop. He laughs when I buy $1000 laptops, but those $1000 laptops last me three y…

> But once a month he's calling me about some kind of virus he's gotten even though he runs Symantec every day.

You've identified a source of inefficiency in his workflow. If he really hates everything after XP though, maybe it's better (more efficient) to handle a big problem once a month than a dozen little problems (disliking aspects of the tool he's using) every day.

> "I'm a Windows developer", which... why?

That seems like an easy answer, though. Because someone's paying me to work on the technology that they want to use, which may be very different from the technology that I decide to use on my own time. Things can be personally suboptimal, but professionally useful. You don't hate it, but you don't love it as much as the things you use on your home machines.

> Relying on an outdated piece of software is never the best decision. If Microsoft's updates bother you that much, stop using Microsoft software. Microsoft can't lock you in to anything, and there's very little that Windows offers that OSX, or to a lesser extent Linux, doesn't offer.

Using software that actively works against your best interests, even while acting in your best interests in other ways, without a way to separate the two...is never the best decision. Microsoft can't lock you in, but platform choices of other developers can.

On a separate point about OSX: One thing it won't ever offer is the ability to run it on my hardware of choice. I happily pay Apple-like prices for hardware configured in ways that Apple doesn't offer.

> The only slightly legitimate complaint is the lack of games, but there are a ton of games for Mac these days and consoles do exist.

Games aren't fungible. Mac and Linux support lots of games, including what I was playing last night. Sometimes, what I want to play is limited to a single platform, and that platform is one that I wouldn't choose for general-use. C'est la vie.

> It's not really lock-in if you choose to be locked in.

That sounds like one of the arguments I've heard to justify things like TSA searches, or the various statements from politicians saying that internet access isn't a necessity and shouldn't be considered a right. "You don't have to fly! You can drive! No driver's license? You can bike!" Well...right. You don't "have" to use Windows, because you don't "have" to make software that works with Windows. It's your own choice to target customers using the most-used PC OS in existence.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#506

Post by vetinari »

supernovae wrote: post #459
CydeWeys wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google shouldn't do it either, but I think we're diverging into a non sequitur. Whataboutism isn't a valid defense.

its not whataboutism.. its making a fair comparison. I'm not excusing Microsoft's behavior based on others actions especially since I know this behavior is simple to disable in its latest OS release which is free to upgrade to.

Speaking of fair comparisons - which Google products, that shows these ads, did you pay hundreds dollars for?

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#507

Post by vetinari »

supernovae wrote: post #418
viridian wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I fill out the paperwork in advance Microsoft won't ruin my night? How generous of them. I'm really glad that linux gaming is increasing year over year, because gaming is about the only reason I still use windows at home.

again, this is another attack without much merit. Lots of windows users want the updates because they're asking Microsoft for them. If you want to run Linux then RUN Linux.. you don't need to rain on the MS parade for no other reason than a an apparent lack of empathy for what other human beings want to run.

I doubt that Windows users want the update process to interrupt them at the most inconvenient time possible.

The problem are not (security) updates themselves. The problem is the intrusive update process and non-security updates bringing "features" nobody asked for.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#508

Post by jessaustin »

supernovae wrote: post #497
jessaustin wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but part of the process of "ironing out" local networks will be an easy way of categorizing what host gets what sort of connection to the internet. A pedometer built into a shoe needs very little access to anything.

but it will need an update if it has a CVE and it shouldn't need humans to update it

In general one would say that, but there would be a category of local host that would mean "we don't trust this device to correctly update its firmware, so that action (and consequently most other network actions) is not allowed".

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#509

Post by vetinari »

supernovae wrote: post #445
valuearb wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL at comparing MSFT to Apple or Google in this regard. Googles whole business model is ad supported, in return you get good free software. Apple actually fights to protect your privacy, when you pay them money for hardware they just try to make it work well for you, not advertiser. And their updates/reboots are optional. MSFT takes your money, then doesnt protect your privacy AND sells you out to advertisers.

I don't buy this argument. Its fully of fallacies and misconceptions. Microsoft offers a very similar ecosystem.. You can use office online, One drive, bing.com, skype, Cortana, Outlook.com and many services free for use with advertising (or no advertising) MS doesn't "take your money" either, you buy something with Windows 10 on it or you buy a mac with OSX.. iOS updates aren't usually optional, as they quickly spam…

The thing is, when I wanted to use Windows, I didn't ask for "office online, One drive, bing.com, skype, Cortana, Outlook.com and many services". I wanted Windows, not additional baggage crammed down my throat.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#510

Post by vetinari »

digi_owl wrote: post #311
TeMPOraL wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this problem all the time on a Galaxy S4. I don't remember now whether this was a 16GB or 32GB model; either way, it quickly filled up pretty much entirely by system data and apps. Having an external SD card for everything else didn't help much, and I spent over a hear with phone storage hovering barely above 500MB (if you go below, half of the stuff on the phone refuses to work).

Another interesting tidbit is that as storage fills up, Android slows down. I suspect this is an artifact of using the Linux kernel. As said kernel puts a focus on IO ops, and the EXT file systems spend a whole lot of time looking for contiguous free space before committing a write. Thus if your app do a bunch of writing (say syncing local data with the cloud) at start, it will start quite slowly on a near full Andro…

In the past, many Android devices had problems with the quality of the flash - as it aged, it also slowed down. Occasional reset and full trim helped for a while, until it didn't help anymore. The poster children of this problem were Asus Transformer Prime and the original Nexus 7.
Post reply on HN