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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Would it be valid to say any of these?
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.