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.

Comments

Who makes these decisions?

[tom229]

Seriously. It's mind boggling how out of touch the tech industry has become.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[Lumpio-]

The users. They can vote with their wallets, and refuse to use Microsoft software if they don't like it.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[The Real Dr John]

Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate. To me, Windows 10 seems like a downgrade from 7 ultimate.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS's approach actually seems sensible to me and for the better good.
1) If you know enough about patches to delay them, and manually manage them you should probably be using Windows Pro anyways.
2) This will help discourage businesses from using Windows home in the business which is a good thing.
3) Hopefully this will create better communication with MS and 3rd party software vendors so they can release updates which don't break things. (which is less likely to happen to home users anyways... in my experience it's the highly custom proprietary software inside of companies that usually breaks)
4) this has an easy work around... use the Pro version instead of Home, which is what I normally recommend anyways. I used to charge 2x the hourly rate to work on home versions of XP, Vista.... not as bad with Win 7, etc... but still...

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[Bengie]

ignorant Windows users can be about security

It's not "windows users", it's "users". Just feel lucky that Windows users haven't moved to Linux yet. Once they do, the ecosystem will get polluted.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[AmiMoJo]

I think consumers do like it. Both Android and iOS make it pretty much mandatory to get updates unless you go far out of your way to disable them. I don't use iOS much but Android quietly installs system updates in the background as long as you have Play installed (the default, 99% of devices do).

Users just want a secure system that works. They don't want to be asked stupid questions like "do you want this critical security fix?" It's stupid because they are a clueless user, so the answer is inevitably going to be "yes". All it does is train them to click "OK" when presented with anything that sounds security related.

The down side is that for the rest of us it means we need to upgrade to Pro. For most people though it's what they want: security and updates handled for them.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[jader3rd]

The users. They can vote with their wallets, and refuse to use Microsoft software if they don't like it.

And they've been voting for Chromebooks which automatically update without giving the user a choice. So, Microsoft has to respond in like.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[jbolden]

How is this out of touch? Deciding that home users generally don't make the correct choices on security is not being out of touch. Unifying the ecosystem offers benefits for all, deciding those are more important than home users having choice is not out of touch, even if you don't agree. Deciding that only people who buy the professional product will be able to make such choices offers a reasonable way out for those users highly motivated enough to make an informed decision.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[damnbunni]

DirectX 12. Windows 7 won't have it. And as someone who plays a lot of PC games, DirectX versions matter. A lot.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, DirectX doesn't matter at all to the gameplay. If a game sucks but looks really good, it still sucks.

Re:Who makes these decisions?

[tom229]

It's not. Neither you, nor Microsoft, knows what's best for people.. so stop presuming you do. That is a very disturbing trend in the tech industry these days.

Having automatic Windows updates on by default and requiring a device administrator to disable it is prudent. Removing the ability to disable it is presumptuous and short sighted. I'll give you some scenarios why.

1) I'm giving a presentation on my laptop. Windows updates and restarts and the entire audience has to wait 10 minutes. Why don't I have pro? I don't know. I bought this stupid thing at Best Buy!
2) I'm trying to download a large file at home to get some work done and it's going at 20K/sec because Windows has decided it's time to update and destroy my bandwidth.
3) I'm in the middle of a game or some work and my computer just reboots because it has decided to update.
4) And of course: my computer updated and now my webcam doesn't work (this actually happened to me recently).

The crux of the problem may just be that Windows doesn't do updates very well. Regardless, the lack of choice and configuration is not, and should not, be a welcome "feature".

No worries

[bruce_the_loon]

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.

Finally! This is good policy

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Security is becoming more important than getting things done. This excuse of "this security update will break something I need" has been over used to keep security holes open. In this connected world, your security hole is my problem too. It is like storing a 50 gallon drum of gasoline in your garage. You might have excellent reasons for doing so, but it is a fire hazard for the neighbors.

All OSes should fix security holes and update them. If you can't use the latest security updates, stay off the internet.

But in the real world, someone will publish a hack using hosts file to misdirect microsoft.com to unreachable ip address, and many will blindly search for, "security update broke my very old Adobe photo shop" find such hacks and install them blindly.

It is difficult to keep your home safe in a city filled with pyromaniacs.

Re:Finally! This is good policy

[Pentium100]

Then make the updates not an annoyance to install. Pretty much every Windows update requires a reboot. Usually, after installing fresh Windows on a PC I have to reboot multiple times installing updates.
Compare that to Linux - reboot only necessary for kernel updates (and it seems that the latest versions no longer need it), otherwise you just restart the affected service. And even without that, Linux services are quite secure (compare the major Linux bugs like Heartbleed with the number of major Windows bugs).

Also, not all security bugs affect me. For example, let's say there is a bug that would allow someone to hack my PC over WiFi. If my PC does not have WiFi card, I do not need the update.

security update broke my very old Adobe photo shop

Photoshop is expensive. If I buy it I will use the version as long as I can do what I need with it. Just like everything else. I am not buying a new TV if my current one is good enough for me. I also bought a new PC (and installed Windows 7 - I hate the Flat UI of Windows 8) because I wanted to play games that did not run on my old Windows XP PC. This happened before the end of support, not that I was installing lots of updates before - I really dislike rebooting my PC, so much so, that I have enough UPSs that can provide power for an hour in total and am considering buying a generator.

Re:Finally! This is good policy

[pla]

This excuse of "this security update will break something I need" has been over used to keep security holes open.

1) Microsoft's updates do occasionally (twice a year or so) break things I need. And rolling them back doesn't always unbreak them.

2) Not all Windows updates consist of security patches. How do you justify decreasing the security of a system by installing IE11 or Skype or the Bing toolbar, in the name of "your security hole is my problem too"?

3) Get Satya's dick out of your mouth, troll.

Home machines should be updated

[edtice1559]

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.

Re:Secure Boot

[jbolden]

What alternatives are impractical? Android is thriving. Mac is thriving. A variety of embedded and server OSes are thriving. Virtualization has made Linux easier than ever to try.... Virtualization. cloud and remote desktop have made the base OS ever less important.

Trust me, this is a good thing

[ErichTheRed]

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.

It's a Good Idea.... somewhat

[Puls4r]

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.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last update to the OS that caused a major problem?

Tuesday.

Re:Secure Boot

[Ol Olsoc]

Do you even code, bro? As any programmer will tell you, building and supporting multi-platform apps is a royal pain in the ass and costly as hell too. Unless you are willing to pay out the nose, it ain't going to happen.

To brag about only one operating system, and one operating system only is mission critical, is exposing a huge vulnerability.

I'm a systems guy, knowing only enough programming to keep from being bullshitted by programmers. Andf teh idea that coding is too hard to do on anything but one platform is just that sort of bullshit.

Re:Secure Boot

[ArcadeMan]

When the business guys start making the technological decisions, it's time to look for another job.

Re:Secure Boot

[Barlo_Mung_42]

The people who have a valid reason to not get them will know how to do this or it will be a quick google search away. The people who can't be bothered to figure it out are precisely the people who should have auto updates on.

Five reasons to need Windows

[tepples]

Would it be valid to say any of these?

• We need Windows because the application we use is listed as Garbage in Wine AppDB.
• We need Windows because we installed Wine from the distribution's repository and the application we use failed in X, Y, and Z ways.
• We use an application that controls a hardware peripheral, such as a CNC mill. We need Windows because the application depends on a Windows-exclusive device driver for this peripheral, and Wine is designed to run applications, not drivers.
• We produce a web application. We need Windows because we need to ensure that it works in Internet Explorer 11 and Edge, which are components of Windows.
• We produce a desktop application. We need Windows because we need to ensure before we ship that the Windows version works in genuine Windows and doesn't depend on bugs in Wine.

Re:Secure Boot

[Cederic]

Well, I think forced updates is it.

Can't be, this was announced and has been known for at least a couple of months already.

It's why I'm waiting another six months or so before deciding whether to take the free upgrade or not. Hopefully by then it'll have gone catastrophically wrong and they'll have given users some control back, or the after-market options will exist and I'll know what I need to do to cripple the automatic update.

But will Pro force updates eventually too?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Not really last minute is it?

[PRMan]

A lot of people thought they were for the beta only. They thought that once RTM was released it would be a little less draconian.

I have a SERVER(!) 2008 R2 installation at home as my gaming machine, and it rebooted me in the middle of a game last night. And my settings weren't even set that way. So people saying, "I'll stay on the old one and it won't do this to me" are kidding themselves.

Re:Secure Boot

[david_thornley]

And every niche business application that someone might need has a F/OSS drop-in equivalent that runs under Mac OSX or Linux or Android, right?