Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 To Use Machine Learning in Latest Attempt To Make Reboots Less Annoying (arstechnica.com)
The next semi-annual update to Windows 10 will use machine learning models to make automatic rebooting for updates a bit less annoying. From a report: Currently, Windows will detect if you're away from your system (mouse and keyboard idle and not playing video or anything comparable) and perform its reboots during those idle moments. However, at the moment, the system doesn't distinguish between briefly stepping away from the machine to grab a cup of coffee and being away for hours because you've left the office or gone to bed. This has provoked some amount of complaining due to the updates interrupting work. With the new predictive system, Windows will try to distinguish between these two cases, and it will avoid the update if the absence is expected to be short.
What if I've left something open that I don't want to lose and leave it open for the night or keep it running overnight while not logged in? Yeah I know, save before you leave the machine for the former, but there are times I don't want to save changes yet and am just too stubborn to save to a temporary file and silly me expects a machine to continue running if I don't tell it to shut down...
Except, of course, make Windows 10 less annoying.
for a windows 10 rebooting on a live tv channel (preferably fox news)...
THEN it takes 40 minutes to reboot!
One whole hour of you ay GONE!
Why not only install updates late at instead? 3 AM would be good.
Making reboots less annoying? So Microsoft is taking on Hollywood now?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I really don't understand why you need to create policy to prevent Windows updates during working hours. There is absolutely nothing so urgent in these updates that cannot wait until I log off. Microsoft insisting that these updates pushed out on their schedule and not on user's schedule is ultimate hubris.
It's called increasing the idle timer. It's also called giving users the ability to disable forced updates before they dump Windows altogether.
Just don't make ANY reboots 'automatic', let the user decide when that happens and trigger it manually.
Or, you know, you could dump Microsoft entirely and get Linux, and take back control over your hardware.
The next semi-annual update to Windows 10 will use machine learning models to make
...spying on users more effective.
The only things Microsoft has to do to make reboots less annoying is 1) ask first and 2) let you postpone the reboot indefinitely. They don't need machine intelligence, they need human intelligence. Only, let's face it, they're not even trying to give the users what they want any more, since that includes not being spied upon.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Also need full active hours control on server and for this.
Need be able to set active hours as high as 23 hours a day maybe even have a way to set M-F 24 hours a day and open S-S.
Now an idle moments system can work on a server but it need a lot of admin control (in a easy way) and nice to have hyper-v smarts as well.
What about making server more like Linux with less reboots needed?
I guess no one suggested just not rebooting the machine unless the user asks? I'm going to that not having 2 GB monolithic monthly patches that take 30 minutes to install was also off the table.
Isn't the most obvious solution to the problem is to have stable software that doesn't require reboots when an update is provided.
I can see needing updates for AV tools (ie Windows Defender) which should be updating signature databases as well as maybe Edge updates which would require the browser to end and restart. If other aspects of the software requires updating, there should be approaches to allow it without causing a reboot.
I've always found Microsoft's update process to be quite annoying with what seems to be two out of every three updates resulting in a reboot. Ubuntu, on the other hand, seems to require a reboot once every 5-10 times.
I think Microsoft has grown too accustomed to accepting reboots after updates and maybe looking at it from a different perspective (ie Reboots are bad, not something we need machine learning to schedule) would be a win-win.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I thought there was no way to make Windows updates more annoying, but they managed to figure out a way!
Nothing like stepping away to make tea or lunch and come back to just see it slipping into an update reboot...
Or as others have said, wake up to find something crucial gone because it choose to reboot while you were asleep. That includes paste buffers too you know!!!!!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bring Windows 7 back to the market and offer optional security patches for it.
I don't want a record of my habits in my local computer anymore than I want it in Microsoft's servers: none, take it back, don't track me, even on my own machine, even for this purpose.
IMO. /futurelostcustomer
Why stop with making only the updates annoying. Keeping going Microsoft! Lot's more to "fix" there.
I'm sure usage information will only be used for reboots and won't be sold to advertisers or used for other purposes.
Instead of trying the water with their "AI", couldn't they simply let us configure in detail when and whether we want the updates to be installed?
And also, they should focus their resources on eliminating the post-reboot/post-shutdown stage of the update, which is the most annoying. (you turn off the computer in the evening, and next day when you hurry to start working it tells you to wait because it's "preparing updates")
You do not own anything on your computer. You lease it. Software, OS, music files - none of it belongs to you.
Given this, why should you be allowed to control when the actual owners of your bits and bytes decide to reboot the machine? What business of theirs is it if you're tanking a raid or in the zone writing your novel?
I literally just can't believe the insensitivity of those so privileged to be allowed to lease software and operating systems from such benevolent folks. Why do people insist on being such sticks in the mud?
Check your premises.
Do not Reboot my fsckng machine ever!
In my opinion, this is not good news.
I mean, yes, reboots are annoying and it'd be good to improve that process somehow. However, my concern would be that using machine learning to control the process could have the effect of making it even less predictable. Frankly it was easier when I could tell users, "Your computer will reboot at 3am every Tuesday. Save your work Monday night." Then they changed it so Windows just sort of reboots your machine... whenever. A new patch comes out, and if Microsoft decides that you need that patch tonight, then it's going to install tonight... at some point. We don't know when. It should be outside of the set "Active hours", and there are rules for when it runs, but it's not super obvious. And no, I can't control it.
And now that last part is changing to "It should be outside of the set 'Active hours', but not even Microsoft knows the rules for when it runs. And no, I can't control it."
I don't believe that machine learning has a snowball's chance of assisting in something as chaotic as user behaviour. My routine can stay the same for extended periods and then suddenly change because of an urgent deadline or another emergency. No amount of learning can equip a machine to know that. The update is almost guaranteed to occur when I can least afford it, i.e. when I am not working to my usual schedule.
Regarding the topic of os processing while the user is away...
Does anyone know what why there is a good amount of hard-drive activity in Windows 7 when the user is away?
This is with a clean install of Windows 7 with sp1 either on a pc or in vm -- superfetch and index services are turned off - system-restore schedule-item is turned off -- .net library rebuilds are forced to be completed - no other 3rd party software is installed
Is it possible that the os is just reading all files so that the hard-drive can determine if a block rewrite is needed?
is there some other service or feature that can be turned off?
thanks
I'm trying to build extremely quiet offline machines and VMs
There would be a simple solution: Ask the user. Inform the user that a reboot is required, preferably with an estimate how long the reboot will take on the average machine so he knows whether he can get a cup of coffee or whether he should rather only do it when he leaves for the day 'cause then it might be ready when he comes back the next day, and let the user decide when that reboot fits best.
This is the solution for the problem you allegedly have.
Since that solution is SO blatantly obvious that even a C-Level manager can't possibly be stupid enough to not notice it, my money is on them having yet another piece of spyware that they need to cram into Win10 and now need an excuse for it. Most likely 'cause it's going to be SO noticeable that they can't just silently slip it into the next patch.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not surprised. Don't get me started on how many times I have needed to do a reboot immediately before a presentation and purposefully choose "restart (only)" and not "restart and update", only to watch it run updates anyway. Several times I have been late to present because the system was still running the updates I didnt tell it to install when the appointment time arrived.
How about:
(1) Giving users a choice of which updates to install. If a home user doesn't want UI changes crammed down their gullet, it should be their right. There should be a "security updates only" option for all users.
(2) Allowing users to schedule update times manually. Give a time window, but allow users to delay the update even in that window if they click a dialog.
Microsoft should stop abusing their customers.
The number of programs (not just MS updates) that say, "We must reboot to finish this install".
I'm like, "You're keyboard software. The keyboard is working. All the lights on the keyboard are working. You obviously ~don't~ need to reboot to finish this."
It all goes back to MS being sort of crap at OSes in general, I suppose.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Put a diseased band-aid on a brain injury... FIXED.
Nothing could be more true than this: https://twitter.com/iamdevlope...
Basically Microsoft added "if idle > X time", and that was it?
Making a pop-up window show up with "system update available, do you wish to update? [Y/n]" is waaaay too simple. I haven't gone to Stanford to do that. Smart computers. That's what's cool. How do I detect presence/absence of user to.... ...FFS...
I am amazed that people put up with this nonsense. That MIcrosoft can reboot your own computer essentially at will, at an instant of their choosing, is something that should be of grave concern to anybody even minimally concerned about data security and confidentiality.
I don't know about that.
I wish it could find a way to stop this site giving me a GPDRS popup (or whatever it's called) every two clicks or ten seconds, whichever comes first.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
With this nonsense, which is out of of topic to boot, what you are achieving is more attention and even sympathy for Trump. Thanks for nothing.
It didn't used to be this way. And then they got shiat on because people who aren't very technical never updated their machines. So, because of that "M$ is teh suxxorz" or whatever the flavour is today.
Then they started giving people control, and people would just defer them constantly. So, in home editions, they made the updates happen automatically. The way that *most* non-technical users would want it to happen. You and I don't want this to happen. However, you and I are also capable of creating the policies to control these updates.
For my mother, I'm much happier knowing that her Windows machine is applying its updates and I'm no longer having to go up to her house and scrape all the crap off her computer.
I want how it worked with Windows 7: let me configure how updates are done (Notify but don't download unless I give the go ahead, and let me decide when to apply them). Actively removing any mechanism where I can set that is asinine.
I have my Win10 Home box "hacked" to prevent auto-updating (essentially, setting the wired network to be metered via the registry), but I don't get the notifications like I used to from Win7. It did nag me after installing 1803 about being behind on updates, so maybe that will be good enough.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Here's a crazy notion. How about designing the system so it doesn't have to reboot? I know crazy right? Now like those unix folks have figured this out or... oh wait.
My operating system shouldn't have to reboot except on VERY rare occasions - typically major operating system upgrades. Microsoft has people trained to think this is somehow normal and/or necessary.
I've always found Microsoft's update process to be quite annoying with what seems to be two out of every three updates resulting in a reboot. Ubuntu, on the other hand, seems to require a reboot once every 5-10 times.
You're lucky if it's only two out of three. In my experience it's more like having to reboot 99 out of 100 updates.
Windows 10 To Use Machine Learning in Latest Attempt To Make Reboots Less Annoying
means:
Advertising and spying platform known as "Windows 10" to use simple if/else statements to try (no promise made) to reduce the irritation of the lab experiment subjects also known as users when the machine force restarts on them at random times.
What is the machine provides life support? Oh wait, you'd be mad doing that with windows, ok carry on!
Why UNIX?
I've got a bad feeling about this.....
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Just remember boys Windows 10 is NOT AN OS. Its a service HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA YOU take what they give you and like it. Sad days these are when business tell US what we can or cant do for fun or work.
Jack of all trades,master of none
It is, fortunately, still possible to effective disable Windows 10's automatic rebooting through Group Policy by not downloading them in the first place.
The Group Policy, without setting up a WSUS server, can only be configured to stop updates from downloading automatically (option 2) but not auto-installing once downloaded. Once updates are downloaded, they are installed and the clock starts ticking towards an automatic reboot. But I can now go for months between reboots. I've also turned off Windows notifications and Windows doesn't bother me about it either. When I get to a good stopping point in my work, I'll do all the updates at one time and reboot my machines. We don't need A.I. for this. We need Microsoft to back down from its insane policy that's going to land it in legal hot water the moment significant data loss happens due to automatic reboot.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/waas-wu-settings#configure-automatic-updates
Note: At least Windows 10 Pro edition is required for this to work. Home edition doesn't have Group Policy features.
There are real reasons for some users to not want their computer to restart automatically. I do agree that people should always save their work. There are other things that can cause data loss like a power outage or BSOD. There are things that people do need to leave running that this AI could interpret as a good time to restart. Rendering video, running any sort of serving application, or even keeping Outlook open so rules can automatically run.
When you use Microsoft software, keep in mind that you have very little control over it. A user should always be in full control of their own operating system, since that is the only person that truly knows what the user wants. The tech companies have gotten way out of hand with how they want total control of our lives, and that's not just Microsoft.
What if I only want to reboot when "I" reboot. how will the machine learn that? I run many services on my computers, including memcached. how will "machine learning" solve that issue? It seems to me that they are spending lot of money to avoid making the reboots voluntary.
Windows XP and Windows 7 applied patches on a schedule and rebooted on a schedule. This was just fine. Yeah, sometimes I left an app open and I came in during the morning with the "do you want to save?" prompt up and the patch not applied. No problem, my bad, I'll save before I go to bed tonight then I'll get the patch.
Windows 10 now has 3 different places to configure the schedule, and most of the patches ignore it anyway. Automatic updates has a configurable time in the system control panel, then there's a "metro" style control panel where I configure working hours, then there's a popup in the notification area that tells me that it wants to apply a patch and it asks me the time. And despite all that, I still get notifications during the day asking me when it can apply a patch.
Most recently, I saw a message in the notification area telling me that it didn't notify me about a reboot because I was playing a game. *facepalm* Why did they make it this complicated?
The core idea for any reboot policy should be: the user sets the preference for updates. If the user chooses "no updates" then when the update is escalated to a higher level (an "important security patch) it prompts the user that an update is needed. The user then updates their preference for updates, where "no update" is always an option. If the user continues to refuse the update, and the update continues to escalate in priority, then SO BE IT.
In the case of a machine managed by an IT department, those managers are the ones who will have the ability to escalate the update priority. Then they will be able to see which users are refusing the updates, and can use their soft skills to resolve the issue.
Computers are tools that WE CONTROL. If maintenance is needed, you ALWAYS ASK.
I dunno, they could pop a dialog that says, Reboot needed soon, scheduled for 4AM tomorrow, OK?
Almost like sysadmins do when they need to reboot, except they just say it will be at 4am.
Then there will be less security issues and less need to reboot. Put all the shit nobody really want in the windows-store. Problem solved. Reboot once ever year.
It's actually quite easy (for us at least) to control the updates for Windows 10 computers. Run gpedit.msc and set "Configure Automatic Updates" to level 2. This forces the Windows update to always ask before downloading an update. This let me delay the 1803 feature update download until I was ready and could do a pre-reboot first. The downside is you have to allow defender updates each day but that only takes a few seconds to hit the download button.
Find it under Computer Configuration, Administrator Templates, Windows Components, Windows Update.
Microsoft: Please follow Linux example and make the updates happen separate from the reboot. On a Linux machine, I could update ever package, and install five new kernels (just because), and the reboot will still be just as fast as before. On Windows, if I update IE, the mandatory reboot takes four minutes. to complete. And it escalates from there for every update. Why must I wait thirty minutes before I can use my computer again?
I for one, just want an "Update and Turn Off" option, for both at home and work! Nothing more needed!!!
(But I would be really really annoyed, if I turn on my computer next time and find out Windows Update has still work left to do!!!)
Maybe that's what he wants?
I think it is funny they are calling an activity timeout "machine learning". I guess 30 years ago when they implemented screen savers with a timeout, little did they know that was "machine learning".
A lot of things about Windows 10 I honestly don't mind, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Never-mind that I may leave stuff open and want to come back to it without interruption the next day. Sometimes I have a long-running video encode or compute job (i.e. multiple days). I don't need Windows randomly deciding to reboot and throw away my progress.
Why do we need machine learning for this? Just give users the option to decide when they want to reboot.
Anyway, to those who haven't figured it out yet, there's an easy way to stop this behavior.
Visit C:\Windows\System32\Tasks\Microsoft\Windows\UpdateOrchestrator.
Delete the file named "Reboot". This is the scheduled task that actually fires off the reboot after an update.
Create a folder in the same place named "Reboot". This prevents Windows from automatically re-creating the file that you deleted.
Done.
That's what i do, give the fucker a chance to update itself.
Of course whenever I have a presentation, that's when I'm presented with the update crap. No, I just want to use the computer thank you, sigh.
How about we knock it off with the automatic updates and return control of the PC and updates to the user.
All you have to do is disable the Windows Update Service. I did this shortly after Windows 10 rolled out, and I've *NEVER* had an unexpected shutdown/reboot/"go pound sand while updates install", etc.
Then, once a month (or whenever I remember to do so), you can MANUALLY start the Windows Update Service, **ASK** it to install the updates, etc., **AND THEN** disable the service again until next time...
Problem solved.
Wow! So great that Microsoft is using AI to figure out when to reboot. Such progress since the pre-Windows 10 days when they just did the much more simplistic thing of...ASKING...the user when to apply updates and reboot!
Isn't technology great?!?
That Charmed reboot looks pretty annoying to me...
$10.00 says when you come back after you get that cup of coffee, the next ad displayed will be related to whatever you typically open afterwards. Most coffee breaks are inbetween tasks, so now Windows 10 will also be able to time your computing tasks and tailor the ads to match.
Reboots? Who cares. It's the analytic data they want. The reboots only delay it. That's the only reason they care about it at all.
In a related note, should I assume that AI's purpose will be to spy on everyone? A double agent in every pocket? Great.
Ubuntu can install in 10 minutes, and updates take less than a minute. Why does Windows have to take so long? So much legacy code and support for a ton of old things?
A long time ago, I pushed the update button, I pushed the reboot button, or I waited and pushed the reboot button later.
Not so long ago, I disabled updates until I didn't mind the distraction.
Today, windows is configured to reboot only after-hours -- I choose the hours -- and to avoid updates altogether for a month.
Seems perfect to me!
I don't worry about updates happening during intense work days, nor while on vacation. When I decide to allow the updates, I wake up to a fresh reboot, or I push the reboot button at will.
I'm not seeing anything new, nor anything missing. I'm already in absolutely full control.
The one and only thing that I don't control is that I can't ignore updates for more than 30 days at a time. Meh. Non-vital updates are already delayed 90 days. And, in general, I'd like to update every 30 days anyway.
And even that ain't true. It's very easy to disable updates entirely -- I had to do so on a very old and very busted workstation. It's even easier at the network level too.
So who's complaining here?
It sounds like people who don't know how to configure their machines -- which amounts to going through the aptly named "settings" panels, in sequence, for about ten minutes. And really, anyone incapable of configuring their tools, should have those configurations chosen for them -- which is exactly what's happened.
Like I said: I don't see the problem.
You don't nee machine learning to figure out the answer to when you can reboot the machine, the answer is never.
never reboot the users machine.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I have a suggestion based on typical end user usages of Windows 10. Stop wasting about 10 million IO's on defender, superfetch, and updates precisley 0.1 seconds after I log in. Studies have shown that 107.4% of the time, a user turning on the computer and logging in means they want to immediately use it to do something! Maaaaaaaaaybe wait until the computer is idle to waste all that disk access time. How about that for an AI improvement.
Better idea: Use machine learning technology to take better heuristic analyses of infected and/or compromised machines through Window's own "Defender". Innovative, I know. And then let users disable automatic updates, as well as schedule them on their own terms. Unless it's mega-urgent.
EOP
So you responded to what is more than likely a bot or paid troll with the futile effort of 'correcting' it, and didn't even change the subject title. Effectively handing your karma bonus over to that piece of shit. Good job.
Is there an alternative computer out there that will allow the owner decide when to reboot?
.. block chain, cloud, machine learning ..
--
Don't presume to start an update absence confirmation of acceptance.
And give me a "fuck off and die" option on the update. A lot of these are very aggressive when told "not now". The ire at microsoft is that it is presuming when and what will happen and is not taking no for an answer.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"Updates are available, would you like to install them now?"
And include a NO option that actually respects the user*'s choice.
If no choice is made, then it is construed as NO.
Simple, NO?
Added benefit for the user*: not having to be monitored (SPIED ON) so the system can determine (in a datacenter using the telemetry data) if the user* would be okay with the interruption.
I'm thankful I was mindful enough to completely disable updates on Windows 7 before a 10 infection could occur.
* The fleshy data-rich animal that big tech thinks of as "the product".
Enable cookies.
instead of fixing a broken system and make it more modular and flexible, let's ADD machine learning to it, that will solve the problem!
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
No, don't. I don't use cookies here and I don't get that popup at all. There must be something else needs disabling, not enabling.
This auto-reboot idiocy is the single biggest reason why people *and enterprises* are avoiding Windows 10. You've had how many fucking years to get kernel hotswapping updating working, and you haven't done it, and now you need it and your solution is to force people to reboot? That's just plain idiotic.
Just put the damn updater back to Windows 7's model - you know, the one where it asks you first - and we can stop this stupidity. Is it really that difficult? Seriously?
If you don't fix this bloody mess you are never going to get the adoption you want, it's that simple. Come 2020, when Win7 goes EOL, I can forsee a number of very painful legal challenges as Win10 is the only upgrade option but it could easily be construed as not fit for purpose due to its rebooting nonsense.
Just FIX IT, Microsoft. Why is that too much to ask?
- a Windows user since 98 SE who is very very tired of Microsoft's bullshit around what used to be their best product
GP's suggestion is almost as useful as turning it off and back on again.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Its okay for Windows to ask you to update. Its not okay for Windows to force you to update. W10 always asks me to update at all the wrong times, usually when I'm playing video games. I just set it off on a unrealistic time in the AM when the computer is shutdown. Eventually I will get to it and update my computer.
But for the people who don't update and they get hacked or whatever is on the user not he company.
Politely ask if you want to update .... you know, like Linux?
Tell you (if you want) how important and risky each piece of the update is, with affected packages and maybe the name and email of the developer
Let you choose between packages of the update based on the above
Update without reboot (except for kernels)
Update all my apps
Work in the background and let me know when it's done and what didn't work