Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andy H]

Not a Microsoft fanboi, far from it, but......

Surely if you use one OS, you tend to start and shut-down the machine daily, or at least a couple of times a week?

If you use more than one OS (multi-boot) you should be at a level to know that updates are required from time to time.

If you are either of the above, you would know that you can turn off Windows Updates, and if you so wish, you can update your OS when it suits you!

I don't see the problem....... A problem that really shouldn't exist. 

The issue isn't with the need to carry out occasional maintenance and security updates - it is more about the cack handed way Microsoft go about it, the sheer number of updates, the need to reboot after (almost) every update, and the strange notion that slipping in an install of the next version (or 3) should be an automatic update if you express interest by clicking a button saying 'reserve a copy of Windows10'.

[Mr Gav]

You can also choose to be notified of updates and choose which ones to install, that way you have control over which ones get installed and when and then you only need to reboot once for maybe ten updates.

[TheBoy]

Case in point today. Boot my laptop into Win 7 (which is very rare, thankfully). 64 updates and 2 reboots later I start using it.

Go to shut it down tonight.

"Please do not power off or unplug your machine... Installing update 1 of 169.."

WTF do they not understand about the concept of a laptop? Silly me for wanting to shut it down, put it in a bag and walk off with it.

If I were selling OSs that only run on machines with 1980's architecture I'd damned well be trying to hide the fact by making the software as slick as possible, not forcing the customer to jump through hoops like this.

 

And what OS provides less updates?

[TheBoy]

Like most systems, some updates are flagged as can't be installed at the same time as others, this causes reboots to be required.

Perhaps the biggest "issue" with MS updates is the way it defaults (but overridable) to installing any outstanding updates when you shut down.  In fairness to MS, they probably realise that most users are stupid, and wouldn't otherwise install updates unless it was the default action.


But the need to install updates affects every system, Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS, HP-UX, all of them.

[VXL V6]

Like most systems, some updates are flagged as can't be installed at the same time as others, this causes reboots to be required.

Perhaps the biggest "issue" with MS updates is the way it defaults (but overridable) to installing any outstanding updates when you shut down.  In fairness to MS, they probably realise that most users are stupid, and wouldn't otherwise install updates unless it was the default action.


But the need to install updates affects every system, Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS, HP-UX, all of them.

ZX81 never needed updates 

[aaronjb]

And what OS provides less updates?

It feels (entirely subjective) like OSX has less and they very, very rarely require a reboot (only if it's a patch to a kernel library).

'course there's that big, gaping, unpatchable EFI security hole to live with but, y'know..

[Kevin Wood]

Case in point today. Boot my laptop into Win 7 (which is very rare, thankfully). 64 updates and 2 reboots later I start using it.

Go to shut it down tonight.

"Please do not power off or unplug your machine... Installing update 1 of 169.."

WTF do they not understand about the concept of a laptop? Silly me for wanting to shut it down, put it in a bag and walk off with it.

If I were selling OSs that only run on machines with 1980's architecture I'd damned well be trying to hide the fact by making the software as slick as possible, not forcing the customer to jump through hoops like this.

 

And what OS provides less updates?

Not complaining about the number, but, when it comes to making each one as disruptive as possible...

[dbug]

Like most systems, some updates are flagged as can't be installed at the same time as others, this causes reboots to be required.

Perhaps the biggest "issue" with MS updates is the way it defaults (but overridable) to installing any outstanding updates when you shut down.  In fairness to MS, they probably realise that most users are stupid, and wouldn't otherwise install updates unless it was the default action.


But the need to install updates affects every system, Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS, HP-UX, all of them.

ZX81 never needed updates 

Neither did C64

[TheBoy]

Like most systems, some updates are flagged as can't be installed at the same time as others, this causes reboots to be required.

Perhaps the biggest "issue" with MS updates is the way it defaults (but overridable) to installing any outstanding updates when you shut down.  In fairness to MS, they probably realise that most users are stupid, and wouldn't otherwise install updates unless it was the default action.


But the need to install updates affects every system, Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS, HP-UX, all of them.

ZX81 never needed updates 

Not exactly technically correct, as Nine Tiles did produce fixes...   ...most of then shipped out with the 8k ROM (under the guise of supporting the ZX Printer)

[TheBoy]

Like most systems, some updates are flagged as can't be installed at the same time as others, this causes reboots to be required.

Perhaps the biggest "issue" with MS updates is the way it defaults (but overridable) to installing any outstanding updates when you shut down.  In fairness to MS, they probably realise that most users are stupid, and wouldn't otherwise install updates unless it was the default action.


But the need to install updates affects every system, Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS, HP-UX, all of them.

ZX81 never needed updates 

Neither did C64

I was a Sinclair man. Thus the thought of a C64...   

//TB shudders