Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 Home Updates To Be Automatic and Mandatory
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.
Seriously. It's mind boggling how out of touch the tech industry has become.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
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.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
We don't know what this specifically means. Maybe it only means that some Windows Store apps may auto-update.
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?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The updates will be tested on the happy people who got the "Free Windows Upgrade" as part of their Insider Program.
It will be their PCs that blow up, not yours.
anyone have info on if that works on win10?
If you don't want to deal with updates, then don't connect to the Internet and become another botnet node!
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.
When was the last update to the OS that caused a major problem? Oh the certificate issue that broke updates from Microsoft just a few months ago...
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.
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).
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
...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.
I sense a lot of
127.0.0.1 update.microsoft.com
in the future if there isn't at least some registry tweak for those in the know to use.
Since Windows 8, Windows Defender has treated changes to %windir%\System32\Drivers\etc\hosts as possible infections, because they often are, 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.
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?
Now for "evil" updates that are feature updates (or just a driver update that worsen your system, though that is rare.. and driver updates that are security updates exist too) we'll have to see what happens..
I don't want my PC to ever reboot without my permission. I would have no problem with the Windows Update system if it never needed to. It's rare I ever need to "reboot" (that is, kill my desktop and start afresh - which is what I'm really opposed to) my Ubuntu desktop - kernel updates are rarely important, and X server updates happen from time to time but not frequently enough to be a problem.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
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.
I was going to reply to the OP with something like "Thanks Microsoft, for frustrating your users so much that you make them realize they can get along without you." But I like your response better.
Most home users don't give a flying fuck about updates installing in the background. In fact most are happy if they don't have to do it manually.
But when I can't watch a youtube clip because hundreds of megabytes started downloading on my ADSL connection, I'll be mad.
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.
For many who seem paranoid about updates to the OS. This will just infuriate you to no end. But those that don't seem to care or don't know know that Windows 8 updates itself anyway will never even notice. Why is it we don't knock Google for doing this with Chrome OS? My beef would be to have these updates take place at the worst possible time using up CPU cycles or requiring a re boot. Otherwise I am fine with auto updates. I suppose we all should become familiar with the process of how to uninstall a update in case Microsoft screws up. This is where I would like to see Microsoft have the ability to recall a installed update because it has problems.
Is not to "upgrade" to Win 10 in the first place
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.
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. And in most applications, the committed data does not contain the entire undo history. Several times in the past, on devices without a concept of revision control, I have lost data by making an accidental harmful change and letting the application auto-save over the good copy.
Try this: Type a comment into Slashdot but don't submit it. Then restart your computer and reopen your browser. Does your browser's "Restore Session" feature restore the text of the comment?
It's pretty obvious who are responsible for these changes: Hipsters (aka Millennials).
These are people who, as an entire subculture and generation, prioritize Their Way above all else. It doesn't matter if we're talking about software user interfaces, security updates, fashion, or politics. If you don't conform to their very narrowly-defined idea of what's RIght, then you are Wrong.
When you are Wrong in their eyes, it isn't just a matter everybody agreeing to having differing opinions. No, they will eviscerate you. They will shame you (even when they say that shaming is wrong). They will direct a hatred at you that's unbelievably spiteful and angry.
You're right, it isn't like it was in the past, when things were discussed, different alternatives were tried out, and nobody took disagreement too personally. Nowadays, these Hipsters/Millennials see any sort of dissent as a personal attack, and they respond with the utmost hostility. If you suggest a very minor change to a color in their web site design, or if you suggest moving a button in their UI design, or if you don't drink the right beer, then you become The Enemy and they will make it their mission to take you down.
It's sad to see how Windows, GNOME, Firefox, and web design in general have fallen victim to these people.
I can see the philosophical objections, but from a practical standpoint, this just makes sense. Look how many unpatched machines are out there. Microsoft is *very* good about *not* breaking things. Usually if an update *breaks* something, that thing was already broken, just not showing symptoms. Force the application and hardware developers to fix their crap. This doesn't work for business which all seem to run on broken software. They find some environment in which the broken software happens to run and then hire an army of IT guys to ensure that not the slightest thing is touched. Then they jump through hoops to attempt (usually, unsuccessfully) this Frankenstein environment from outside intruders who can exploit with the click of a button. It's inconvenient when an OS upgrade breaks something that is fun and recreational, but still better than the alternative.
This home version of windows doesn't meet my professional needs! Microsoft is fucking us up the ass again! I told you this was a trap!
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.
" Today, if a Windows user finds that an update breaks something that they need, they can generally refuse that update for an extended period."
Seriously? How is a Windows users going to find that an update breaks something unless they install it? These are Home users. They aren't rolling out patches in a lab. Give me a break.
Move onto something new. Upgrade and drop whining.
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...
Simple PAC file to make windows update think there's nothing to find. With a little work, you can block individual files too.
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?
Because updates can break/remove a working piece of software. For example more than a few of the "updates" these days are to REMOVE functionality not improve it. Windows "malicious software removal tool" (part of windows update) has on several occasions attacked user installed software that Microsoft deed "undesirable". Some courts have forced companies to push out "updates" that disabled/removed parts of the system that some copyright/patent ran afoul of.
What happens when Windows finishes downloading an update shortly before my battery runs out?
Suspend isn't a viable alternative when battery is critically low, it'll still drain to nothing in a couple of hours if you can't plug in. The combination of fast boot times and low capacity with SSDs makes the hiberfile an inefficient use of resources, so many people disable hibernate.
It sounds like I'll be forced to install that update during normal shutdown, which takes an in-determinant amount of time (but almost always longer than I expect), so the battery could die and leave the system in a broken state. So it sounds like I'd have to gamble that it can update/shutdown before the battery dies, or that I can last long enough in suspend mode to plug in. Or hope that suspending and letting the battery die won't corrupt anything on the filesystem.
If you want the ability to install updates on your own schedule you will need to get the Pro version of the O/S. Which I am perfectly fine with. Most home users I know have been ignoring critical security updates for years because they are slightly inconvenient.
So, there has never been an incident where an automatically installed Windows update made the computer unbootable?
I am not too concerned about these updates breaking Home machines as that version of Windows will only be getting stable patches that have already been tested by Insiders and presumably, other versions of Windows. What concerns me more is disk space. Being an insider now, every build upgrade eats away about 16 GB of disk space, saved in the Windows.old folder. Granted, presumably Home machines will not be receiving these huge build upgrades but even normal Windows updates quickly pile up and consume copious amounts of space. There are ways of cleaning these temporary files but the assumption with a Home user should be that they don't have the technical know-how to perform these maintenance tasks. Win10 is supposed to run on the same hardware as Win8 and this means a lot of users will be installing it (technically will be forced to install it) on laptops with small SSD drives and these updates will fill these drives very quickly. I hope Microsoft implements some proper automated cleanup service for Win10. By contrast, Linux cleans up after its updates very efficiently and even rolling releases never balloon up in size uncontrollably :)
what kind of anal retentive asshole would not want to receive Windows security updates?
The kind that doesn't like his computer breaking randomly because MS decided they knew better for him than he did.
I never had anything broken because an update.
Why is this even an issue?
Because updates regularly break stuff for people, or change things in ways they don't want it to be changed.
Again, that is just a lie, i know MS is not very appreciated here on /., there's no need to lie though.
If I upgrade to Windows 10, I want every security update the second it comes out. Sooner, if possible.
Then you're an idiot who must have someone else do all the work to keep their computer working and have no idea what these updates actually are.
More likely, you're just a really shitty troll.
Either way, if you think this is great, you're a short sighted moron who needs to get some experience working with computers (any of them, not just ones running MS products) and then you'll understand why this is a fucking stupid idea.
Wish i saw earlier how big of an asshole you're, i would have spent time answering to a liying dick.
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.
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: required and optional. The former is primarily security updates, while the second may include minor bug fixes (traditionally ones that were targeted for presumably better testing inside a later service pack but made available sooner for those affected) or updates to optional components, like new versions (non-security updates) of the .NET Framework, new drivers, and whatnot. I'll take the first but would rather have the opportunity to test the second myself and roll back if needed.
R.Mo
Really? Windows has been able to restart just about every subsystem (including *video*) without requiring a restart or a re-login, since Vista.
Go ahead. Upgrade your video driver under Linux without logging out and back in. Try it. :)
If Windows 10 version of updates involves reboots, closing programs, waiting forever to start the computer, or freezes while updating I'm NOT OK with it.
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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 wildcards.
Then choose the "update then reboot manually" option. Or don't use the home edition of this OS.
/* No Comment */
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?
You can disable the windows update service, duh!
I'd love to be in a crowded coffee shop when the first service pack comes out. The simultaneous swearing would be awesome.
What happens when you're visiting a rural friend and the massive update comes out when you're on a slow connection? How about near your cellular data limit on your wifi hotspot? In the middle of a online game battle? Downloading a large email attachment you need right now? There are dozens of situations that I wouldn't want this to download, but with no option to delay it, you're screwed.
One could just edit their hosts file and "reroute" MS update servers, no?
/* No Comment */
Remove the update that allows the "upgrade" then when it appears hide it.
It's simple, there are multiple web sites telling people how to do it.
Update: KB3035583
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It has been a month for my daughter's laptop.
"Installing updates 10%"
"An error has occurred, your system will be rebooted"
"Installing updates 10%"
"An error has occurred, your system will be rebooted"
"Installing updates 10%"
Rinse and repeat.
It's the only windows system she has ever owned. (She is 21 and has always had Linux based laptops) After 6 months she asked "How does anyone use this piece of shit OS? It crashes, updates break it, and it is always changing shit on me."
She had to have windows because the college required it and MS Office. She had no preference for Linux over windows no dogma to speak to.
Oh my god I have to reboot my computer once in a while? Oh shit the world is ending!
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.
Everybody is going to Pirate Windows 10 PROFESSIONAL. No body keeps Homes versions for more than a few hours.
About a decade and a half ago, Microsoft was convicted in a US antitrust court abusing its monopoly. But after a change in the ruling party, the Department of Justice gave Microsoft what amounts to a slap on the wrist.
Just because it didn't happen to you and you have no friends, doesn't me anything to anyone else. I have to watch my updates regularly, and so do a lot of people I know.
The ones still on Xp.
1) If you know enough about patches to delay them, and manually manage them you should probably be using Windows Pro anyways.
"Windows restarted after an update, which caused Windows Notepad, a Microsoft application mind you, to lose the notes to myself that I was keeping." Is that enough to justify paying extra for Pro on every machine?
If it bothers you that much.
Yeah, those totally sound like peripherals that most home users have.
And if you do - maybe just don't buy Home Edition.
Just set Windows Update service to Disabled. No service and the auto-updates will fail.
When you want to install the updates, set it to Manual and go do an update scan.
Yes, the UI option is gone to protect clueless people.
Because between Windows and Linux I had everything I need, I may have to change that strategy if Macs have the type of commercial apps I need.
If so, then it's a done deal.
.
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".
I know plenty of people whos primary internet connection is 3G/4G with a very limited usage cap. They have windows update disabled, and do them manually when they have access to a better connection.
This is going to fuck them over, and result in some unwanted internet bills.
Mandatory updates sound like a dream come true on one hand. I mean, I won't have to worry about my idiot brother disabling updates because some other idiot told him that security updates will allow aliens to steal his thoughts or whatever.
On the other hand, with mandatory updates, shouldn't Microsoft take responsibility if/when they break something? With millions of users, something will break, and it will be critical. Will MS be liable for their decision to cause this issue? Is the greater good worth the likely damages caused by this policy?
Finally, wouldn't this make a good attack vector? A service that runs with admin level privileges that users cannot turn off with the added benefit of installing random bits of software?
I guess I'm on the side of saying this is a good idea overall. Microsoft will accidentally disable Bill Gates' PC, he'll send another angry letter to Microsoft, and we'll all have a good laugh. In the meantime, I'm going to sit here and keep tweaking my Gentoo system.
I'm sure Microsoft has great lawyers, but I still think they might be opening themselves for liability on this one. By forcing updates, they're taking personal responsibility for the maintenance of your system. If one of their patches bricks your PC or causes you to lose data, they are responsible. I don't think "as is" applies anymore.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well, someone, somewhere will find or create a hack.
Or people/sheeple will begin to realize the hand on their scrotum is not a caring hand.
By "Windows emulation", do you mean actually buying a copy of Windows and running it in a VM, or do you mean Wine (which Is Not an Emulator, hence the name)? The considerations differ for the two.
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.
Make the entire folder read-only. Done. 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.
It's not the wanting of the security updates more than the timing of security updates. I set aside a time to handle this sort of maintenance, do it all at once and then I'm done with it until the next time. I don't want to be dealing with it on their schedule. I certainly don't want to be in the middle of a project/game/anything and all the sudden my system tells me I have X minutes before it reboots for a security update. I don't care if it can be postponed, I don't even want the warning to interrupt what I'm doing.
What about updates that fail to apply themselves? I've had those on some computer freshly installed from a recovery image: about a gazillion updates on first boot, then it wants to reboot a couple of times halfway through installing and eventually it got consistently stuck while applying one single patch. Turn the computer on: Oh, there is one update that needs to be installed. Okay, now please reboot to install the patch. Install failed. Oh, there is one update that need to be installed...
Unfortunately, with the patch not installed, the update to a newer Window (7->8 or 8->8.1 or god knows which it was) would not want to install itself either. The only solution I could work out was to disable all updates and be stuck with an unpatched, old version.
Oh, the merits of a good and solid package manager!
Android is thriving.
Android devices also tend to have tiny monitors. And if they have Google Play, they also have a window manager that forces every app to run maximized. They tend not to have even the "Snap an App" feature that is a standard feature for Universal Windows Platform apps in Windows 8 and Windows RT.
A variety of embedded and server OSes are thriving.
The article is about home edition, not Windows Server or Windows Embedded.
Virtualization has made Linux easier than ever to try
Until a Windows security update breaks your VM app. "DOS ain't done till..."
So I guess that leaves Mac.
To embrace Linux :)
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
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.
You should have programs that autosave regularly. [...] Microsoft should have saved your notepad data when they forced the shutdown.
Exactly. Microsoft puts in automatic restarts without considering its effects on other applications that it ships with its own operating system.
OSX incidentally which you are often critical of, has had this as the default for years now in their developer kit so that almost all OSX applications effective autosave.
Does autosave in OS X save my accidental large deletions and make it impossible for me to revert them? Years ago, I lost a bunch of work to autosave on a Newton device, which ran another Apple operating system oriented toward autosave. I accidentally deleted a bunch of text and then typed one more word. The "undo" would undo typing the word, and then "undo" after that would undo the undo, that is, redo. The large amount of text was just lost for good. See my other comment about autosave.
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.
Again, you DON'T need to lie: 1) Did it happen?. Yes. 2) Is it often?. No, it just happened 2 or 3 times.
you may argue but this is probably not just about security, its about control and some folks gonna get a really big surprise with the windows 10 home rat, do you smell a rat here?
Do select the auto update, manual reboot option.
If Microsoft doesn't make it clear to users that this option is what most users will want, Microsoft will see plenty of bad press over this feature.
use a program that supports auto saves
If Windows is moving toward recommending autosave, then why doesn't Windows Notepad, an application included with Windows, support it?
What would you do in the event of a power outage
Close the lid, which puts the computer to sleep. My laptop can go for days in suspend until either power is restored or I get the laptop to a public place with a power outlet.
I love Android's auto-update functionality. Except when I don't. For instance, if I'm doing something like recording an hd video of my son wrestling, the last thing I want on planet earth is for the phone to start updating and slow to a crawl.
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.
I come from a background where I've been developing for the MS ASP.net web platform for years. This shit going on with Windows 8 and Windows 10 is giving me serious reservations about my future working on the MS platform. Keeping an eye towards demand for the skills, what other platform might I consider taking the time to migrate to?
Capcha: "derails"
...the alternative is probably more swarms of bot nets then we might have otherwise.
127.0.0.1 microsoft.com
OK, troll, let's try this again.
The plain and simple fact is the folks that wrote the fucking OS likely DO know better than the average idiot who doesn't even know what Windows Update is, or why they should do it, which is why it is turned on automagically for that particular crowd.
Retard and be paranoid all you want in the enterprise. Scrutiny is far more critical there. I'd prefer not to continue to populate the earth with massive botnets due to ignorance, or more specifically mentalities like yours.
You do realize the irony here right? The "folks that wrote the fucking OS" are pushing out patches because they fucked up something and need to fix it. Even in the past 6 months MS has had to pull patches because they were breaking peoples systems. You want that on a mass scale?
(compared to Linux, where only kernel updates require a reboot, normally you just restart the affected service(s)).
So you've never actually used Ubuntu then. Today, I reboot once a month for Windows, second Tuesday of the month, nice and predictable (if a bit sad). Ubuntu has no fucking clue - once or sometimes twice a week it wants me to reboot. My worst fear about Win10 is that, by abandoning Patch Tuesday, it will become a shitty reboot fest like Ubuntu!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This is doomed to failure.
My guess is that the average virus-infested Windows Home machine will be bricked by this upgrade.
I run Win7 Professional. I refuse to upgrade to Windows 10.
65.0.0.1/8, 70.0.0.1/8, 94.0.0.1/8, 111.0.0.1/8, 132.0.0.1/8, 157.0.0.1/8, 207.0.0.1/8, 213.0.0.1/8
Block them at the router level like I will. Problem solved.
> My partner uses Mac with _MS_Office_ on it, and I have to correct every document
I have people using different versions of MS Word and I too have fix documents, using Libreoffice to convert them to a newer version of Word. The new version of Word doesn't import older Word documents correctly, but Libreoffice does.
Think about your statement- you said you have to use MS Word because MS Word breaks things. If your partner used Libreoffice, you wouldn't have to correct every document. Just try it and see if it's not better than what you're currently doing.
That's because you fixed all the Linux glitches for her.
The largest safety issue with most cars is the human behind the wheel.
The largest security risk is the user who never applies security updates.
This is a good idea.
Would it be valid to say any of these?
I find it odd that this article is posted now - and even more odd the reactions I'm seeing in the comments. This is news to people? I knew about this 6 months ago when they announced it to their insider program. And then two months ago again when they announced it at Build. If you want the free version of windows 10, you "pay" for it by accepting their updates. Don't like the updates? Pay for the software. It's that simple. They have paid-for and enterprise options that let you delay (and in few cases, opt out entirely) their updates. This isn't some "secret surprise" they are springing on people last minute.
Home VS Pro VS enterprise
Likely the decision went something like this:
How many issues are caused by a windows update breaking something?
How many issues are caused by users not installing important updates?
How many home users are aware enough to make a distinction either way?
It is a support issue, which likely was determined by the fact that more problems being caused than the other. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have simply to make it default in the home version, but still changeable somehow. Bottom line is that it hasn't been released yet, so who knows really.
Also it used to be that I did the same, I would verify, or at least look at each update before installing them... This was before there was 20 updates every week. Now I just let it do everything automatically, and I'll deal with it if something ends up going awry. Odds are MS will deal with it in the following update anyway, which is probably the idea.
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)).
That's because under Windows userspace apps typically have their own updater, which do not require a reboot. During Patch Tuesday you usually get a small 10-pack of Windows core updates and it's not that unreasonable for those to require a reboot. Updates to Office, and video driver updates, still do not require reboots. Under Linux you cannot install a new video driver on the fly, and that's a sad trombone: wah-wah-wah-waaaaa.
I use Ubuntu as my main desktop, with a small Windows partition that I boot perhaps twice a year.
Windows "malicious software removal tool" (part of windows update) has on several occasions attacked user installed software that Microsoft deed "undesirable".
I find that dubious, as MSRT only targets a small well-defined group of malware.
Last year Microsoft pushed out a SHA256 update to Windows 7 and broke signtool from the WDK (Windows Driver Kit). Took a bit of hunting to find the KB package to uninstall, and emphasized the importance of doing at least cursory validation of updates before rolling them out to the rest of the build farm.
Never had any linux "Glitches"
If I had taken it away every few weeks to "Fix" it, she would have noticed.
This sound like a generally beneficial idea, but I have two concerns.
The first is about system availability. At least in current versions of windows updates require non-trivial amounts of time and bandwidth. I now use my computer to stream live video regularly. I want to be able to tell windows that it is not allowed to take up bandwidth or try to reboot my computer in the middle of game 7 of the world series. In a similar vane, I can see some real outrage from users if they are in the middle of a video game and windows decides to steal focus to ask you if it can reboot. (Oh wouldn't it be great if windows could catch up with Linux where almost all the upgrades can be done without taking the system down)
The second is about breaking things. Several have mentioned applications breaking after updates; a concern, but one that at least in theory can be minimized by good testing. My concern is breaking users. Like many here I have older relatives who are not comfortable with the whole computer concept. Every time facebook changes the UI I get desperate e-mails asking where things went or what this new doohickey means. Changes in UI that may be small and obvious to digital natives are major impediments to less skilled users. My great fear is that I will constantly be fielding phone calls from Grandma asking where the button for her Mahjong game went this week.
To quote an awful movie, "with great power comes great responsibility." I will be one of the late adopters of Windows 10 as I wait to see if Microsoft can handle the responsibility it seeks to take on with this new direction.
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Seriously. GOOD! Go cry somewhere else because you'll get no sympathy from me. It's worked fine on mobile devices for ages now and it will work with desktop machines. I'd rather have all the idiot plebs I deal with using forced-updated-windows.
You nerds just want something to whine about. Pathetic.
For literally decades MS has been getting lit up for all the botnets in the wild based off of unpatched Windows boxes. So, they finally do what everyone knows needed to be done, and force updates on home users, to ensure they get patched. And what does slashdot do when MS finally does what was asked of them? Bitches and moans that they don't want what they asked for. Let me guess "you should be able to easily disable it" - so that the first vulnerability that hits a Windows box turns updating off, and we're right back where we started. Am I a big fan of it? No. But I 100% get the reason for it.
The Irony is No OS, No Software of any kind has been released bug free, Ever.
Jack of all trades,master of none
.
But Microsoft is not one to give up. Once Microsoft has the masses auto-upgrading their copies of Windows, the next step in the plan is probably to start charging a monthly fee for the honor of continuing to have Windows activated each month.
Where else will Microsoft get enough revenue to support the bloated Redmond bureaucracy, now that there won't be any more big versions of Windows to sell?
"Today, if a Windows user finds that an update breaks something that they need, they can generally refuse that update for an extended period."
Please tell me what kind of average Windows user checks the internet for any indication of an issue with a patch? We are talking about users that refuse to set a password on the only account on the system, that is also the administrator account. Users that never update Java, Flash, etc.
If someone is tech savvy enough to hold off patching until the industry has vetted them, they wouldn't be using the Home version regardless, they'll pay the 99 dollars to upgrade to Pro.
The Home version being forced to take updates was already known, but TFS is the first time I saw this little gem:
Windows 10 Pro users will be able to delay updates for some period of time
If this reporting is accurate and the claim that users of the Pro version will also be forced to apply updates within a few months or lose security updates is correct, I can count the number of my businesses that will be moving to Windows 10 on the fingers of no hands. TBH, it wasn't looking great anyway -- I've seen no obvious benefits relative to our current standard of Windows 7, and I know few people who are keen on the new UI style -- but losing control of the OS would be a complete deal-breaker no matter how good anything else was. The figure of 8 months mentioned for the Current Branch for Business is about as useful as Firefox long term support for software you actually rely on to earn your living, i.e., hardly at all.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
some home users may need download time control mainly for people with small caps but cap free late night times.
Windows Update has been somewhat of an afterthought in that it was really easy for it to break, or loop, and users were given no feedback on what was going on. Microsoft have always had such exceptional help for Windows Update that I call them regularly for or with clients. I figure I didn't write the software, they did. Every case of it breaking is slightly different. In one case, a virus completely removed the windows update components. That was bizarre.
A bit of my magic, a bit of theirs... optional reboots, which is good for productivity, though a bit of a red flag (it would be better to always reboot.)
I like this policy, and I applaud them.
Forced updates for home users have been known about a long time and were reported on /. weeks or possibly months ago. I don't see that as a last minute thing.
Wine isn't an emulation of Windows, it's an implementation of the Win32 et al APIs. It is no more an emulator of windows than Xenix is an emulator of UNIX.
In Kenya I get the internet through a prepaid mobile/cellular device. It uses WiFi to connect to my laptop and phone. I pay for a data bundle of a few Gb. It sure is annoying when the pre-paid bandwidth is used by a hefty update when I want to conserve it. This is what my Android phone does when it has a WiFi connection. It must imagine that the bandwidth is unlimited, and forces updates without my consent. Poof, there went a useful chunk of my bandwidth reserve.
There is one update I always disable and it is the Bing sidebar.
Most likely, she turned it off in the middle of an update like they told her not to.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I'm betting their legal eagles are still screaming "LIABILITY!!" at the top of their lungs at Nadella, given that 'mandatory' = 'no one but us to blame' for borkage up to and including personal injury, EULA be damned.
because obviously Pro costs more.
So, WTF are they going to say about this decision once some future update fries a couple hundred thousand (or a few million) desktop machines?
They've obviously forgotten how often that their update service has killed Windows installations. It's a problem they've had since Windows NT days and it hasn't gotten any damned better for all their experience at the task.
A google search for ---> latest windows update crashes computer --- returns over 9 million hits. Obviously, that's not individual occurrences, but it does give an indication of the fucking stupidity of Microsoft's decision.
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.
If you have "scientific devices, specialized astronomy cameras, cnc machine tools, etc.", buy the Professional edition (which you probably already have), and then you can defer updates.
Problem solved.
kthx
Lucky fucking you. I've twice had updates screw the pooch. One when it replaced the CURRENT driver for the motherboard with a GENERIC and incompabtilbe one resulting in a bludescreen. The other was an IE update that blocked all access to the internet. You could CONNECT but NOT access with ANY program. Which is a good reason why IE should NEVER have been INTEGRATED with Windows. MY FUCKING COMPUTER MY FUCKING DECISIONS ON WHO CONTROLLS IT! Namely ME damnit!
I do it all the time on my dev box; especially if I'm moving between nVidia's proprietary driver, CUDA, and nouveau.
In the rare cases where it breaks video (more often caused by a config change in the X-Server) the worst I'd have to do is Ctrl-Alt-Backspace, which hasn't caused me to lose active work or forced a new login yet.
Run the apps you need on the platform that suits each one best
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.
There are plenty of Android devices designed to be connected to regular monitors and TVs as PC replacements.
Are these non-Google Play devices?
It's being able to switch between them easily (aka the Taskbar) that's the key
Necessary but not sufficient. Taking notes on a document requires being able to split the screen, read from one window, and write in another. I can do this on PC operating systems using a window manager that implements either tiled or floating windows. But the Android CDD specified an "all maximized all the time" window management policy last time I checked. The Android CDD allows an app to assume that the available screen space won't change, other than rotation, after the app is installed. Otherwise, you have to buy multiple devices, one for reading and one for writing, and spread them out on your desk like they used to spread out PADDs in Star Trek.
Which is one reason I will never get it.
Most home users have no concept of whether an update should be installed or not, and default to not. I think it is a smart decision to require this for Windows home. iOS already does this for apps and you can set your Mac to do it as well. And Chrome and Firefox do this already.
Controlling updates has always been a trivial registry value (a single integer). Just because they're removing the option in the UI for "let me choose when to install updates" doesn't mean they're actually going to force you to install them, just to demonstrate that you have non-trivial Windows administration skill. Considering how often I've wished for an "I'm not an idiot" option for most operating systems, Windows included (though on Linux you can usually get it by just making the right choice of distro), I'm OK with this.
For the record, Windows RT 8.0 - released three years ago - had this same behavior (no UI for delaying updates, configured to install them automatically). It was trivial to fix it then (and the mechanism was immediately found), and I doubt it'll be any different this time.
Don't give me any shit about "but what if granny can't defer a borked update that will blow up her machine...?". Granny has never been able to do that. She either installs all updates and on rare occasion "there's something wrong with the computer", or never installs them and gets hosed by malware until it blows up her computer.
Oh, FFS it's even documented by Microsoft. Scroll down to the "Automatic Update configuration options".
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
This has immediately raised concerns. Today, if a Windows user finds that an update breaks something BLAH BLAH BLAH
Author immediately launches into rationalization, but the most important "concern" is that IT'S MY DAMN BOX and you can't modify it without my consent.
Now I agree that patching is a good thing, but you can default users into it without usurping their property rights. That Microsoft didn't deign to do so makes you wonder what other infringements are baked into their new OS.
(This goes for all modern game consoles as well... there seems to be this ridiculous notion that you want to turn these puppies on and watch a progress bar instead of, you know, play.)
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Quote: "The company I am at is trying to go to windows only."
Title of story: "Windows 10 Home Updates To Be Automatic and Mandatory"
Translation: Microsoft will have COMPLETE control of all your company's Windows computers, at ALL times they are operating and connected to the internet.
Guesses: Microsoft is not subject to anti-monopoly laws because the company has allowed secret agencies of the U.S. federal government to have access to all its customer's computers.
That's just a guess. Any other guesses?
Just disable the service. The just know most people shouldnt be jacking around with the system, if you know what your doing, you know about the service. They are moving tons of sysadmin stuff to service control, and powershell. Theres just no fancy GUI tool for the non-techies to mess with.
Build farm.. that's something that most home users have right??
Pull the f***ing network cable! Need to get online? Use another box. Need to get your work off it? Use a flash drive.
I have $$$$ hardware dev tools that I am 90% sure will be problematic under Win10 and I do not want to buy them again for the 3rd time.
This "mandatory" update has relegated my windoze box to a legacy relic that I now only need for said tools. To hell with M$
For Microsoft to enable auto updates but have an option to disable it via the cli. Like "autoupdate "on" "off" "gui" "cli" "both". IE control can be transferred to the gui, to the cli or both but by default it is on / cli so only people who know what they are doing can enable/disable it. Kind of like windows 7 not having telnet by default. The problem is most times you configure something like a switch or something you go in and enable telnet so you can use telnet to configure ssh keys and setup ssh so you still need telnet and we all know telnet is insecure but it is still useful. Having a machine not auto update without having to turn the service off or disable the service would be useful in labs and in situations where you don't have Internet access or don't want the computer on the Internet in the first place. I hate that most manufacturers assume every computer will be connected to the Internet all the time. I have 7 computers that have 0 Internet access and can't update because they are used for a lab and have no security except being not connected (they are network connected on a secure with no route to the Internet and a firewall that only allows RFC 1918 address space Link Local for IPV6 and what I think is private IPV6 space (still learning ipv6).
Find a home using Windows 10 Home to run it's security.
Spoof server.
Feed "update" during automatic patch cycle.
Control home security.
Loot.
Profit!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When the business guys start making the technological decisions, it's time to look for another job.
The business guys get to decide which projects will get funding, talent and resources for development, marketing and technical support.
AOL was my first encounter with automatic updates in the home software market.
I liked the idea then. I like it now.
AOL integrated the functionality of a half-dozen or so stand-alone clients.
To say I understood them all on a technical level would be ridiculous. To say I understood the full implications of every system-level update I've installed in the last twenty years would be even more ridiculous ---- what matters is that in all those years I have only seen a trivial number of niche apps break under the strain.
Not even close. Only seems true with availability bias dialed up to 10,000%
What ultimately trumps a bloody confrontation is not getting into a bloody confrontation in the first place.
Always has, and always will.
Except perhaps in the western genre where every episode features an overemployed undertaker, or in space opera where the red tunics are interwoven with a wearable dereplicator.
It's a lot like earthquakes where the barrel of the gun is the subduction zone. If you happen to wind up right on top of an active subduction zone, guns are a welcome tool. That said, we were equipped with the big brain so as to plan ahead, which involves a little bit more than merely obtaining the best possible result from the worst possible situation.
Can't wait until a |-|4>0r breaks into their servers and replace the updates with malware. :) And there is no way users can refuse :) And grandma will lose her pictures :) And a mega-shitstorm will commence :)
Can't wait until a |-|4>0r breaks into their servers and replace the update with malware. :) And there is no way users can refuse :) And grandma will lose her pictures and her compuer will start broadcasting child porn all over the world , put theire by a bot-net :) And a mega-shitstorm will commence :)
I'm sorry, I've never allowed Windows Update to run automatically. I've heard too many horror stories about Microsoft putting out bad and corrupted updates that cause BSD's to trust them right out of the chute. I'm tired of reading about all the horror stories about things like TiVo where they auto-updated everyone in order to REMOVE features that the TV industry didn't like (auto skip commercials) or all the ebooks that were automatically deleted from people's Kindles and replaced by Amazon approved censored versions. I myself purchased a tablet a few years back in order to read web pages while relaxing on the couch and three months later I was pushed an update to Android which automatically disabled FLASH support. I can still watch videos on YouTube because it has it's own app, but a lot of web pages use flash and I can't view them properly anymore (which was the one of the big points of buying the tablet).
In short, Microsoft cannot be trusted not to crash peoples machines to allow the OS to auto-update.
You'll have to have a credit card number registered on an online server just to maintain an OS (that still forces updates on your machine whether you want them or not).
So much for owning your own computer.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
"Solving an issue for one platform can help produce better results on others."
Mod parent UP.
This change will significantly increase the cost of owning a computer for some users if Microsoft do not manage the process correctly.
The Irony is No OS, No Software of any kind has been released bug free, Ever.
No OS, sure. Software has been released bug free... it's just so simple/old now that few people remember... unless you count that "game" in a tweet ;)
It's not about security updates, it's not about patches, it's about removing the last vestiges of control you have over your own PC.
This update means they can add and remove features at will and you have NO choice about accepting them in the future.
Want mandatory adverts?
Want to run only Windows Store program's?
No? Too bad.
We say what happens on your PC now.
Stick to windows 7 the last version of windows to give you control over YOUR pc
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!
* :)
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
"The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes!)
...apk
Go over well in the high security and high availability corporate office.
We don't allow anything to install without a test. We need to make sure we can install, run out currently functioning apps, and uninstall before we'll let it thru the gate.
I've seen window's updates going on taking multiple reboots and taking "hours" of time. I'd hate to be on the receiving end of a very important email with information on which lives could depend in that situation. so hopefully the updates can come in during other activities, and it be installed at your own leisure (or some requested delay). Of course I'm a linux user, what do I know..... fcsk is the one that kills me on occasion.
How about Hello World? That's a program of sorts?lol
Jack of all trades,master of none
The first step is gaining complete control over Windows Home users. What is the next step? Windows 10 is not "free". It is apparently a method of increasing control over users.
It is possible to turn off the Firefox and Chrome and Apple update mechanisms. The article says that, for Windows 10 users, it will not be possible to turn off updates.
So much so that if it's not addressed properly, I will be replacing ALL my client's OS's with non-MS products.
I'm certain I can figure out a way to manually prevent this through the registry, but the fact that MS would do this is what I would consider the thin red line that they shouldn't have crossed.
Maybe the update will fix some of the problems with 7. Then there was that conduit crap. They should be taken out and beaten good. That was a bitch to get rid of.
And should the bank or the train system be running a Home version of the software in the first place?
The problem, at least with Windows versions so far, is that users tend to not expect their computer to suddenly restart and lose data, and therefore don't go hunting for the mysterious setting to begin with. So they get their computer work on it until Patch Tuesday and *bam!* suddenly lose a lot work.
This is 5:1 out of what kind of devices? Among desktop and laptop PCs, it's probably 5:1 the other way, with only 16% or fewer running OS X, X11/Linux, or something similar.
Because some updates are ether not needed or may cause problems say break things or were not properly tested. Or maybe data caps and not want their system to download large files when they have a cap to worry about or just a slow connection or something.
Well, there goes any hope of the Home version being used by corporate users.
I want to be able to update a windows computer with one click instead of update restart wait update restart wait....no wsus offline does not solve this it leaves about 120 updates to be done also wsus offline has a bad habit of breaking things occasionally to the point its still faster to do update restart wait repeat
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!