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.
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.
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.
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.
No, what we need to combat with software bugs is make bugs more expensive - so it is economical to to write properly working software in the first place. How about this: once a bug is discovered, for every affected computer, Microsoft gets to pay a $100 fine.
Also, how come Linux has less of the "OMG super critical" bugs, like Heartbleed?
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's my belief and hope that Microsoft may put more care into the patches they release, now that they know the impact of a bad patch could be much more broad.
Also, given that the majority of Windows 10 users should now remain up-to-date on patches, maybe this means fewer configurations to have to test. (Or maybe not, since there may still be Pro and Enterprise users who keep deferring patches for years, but I don't think there will be as many of them.)