Hacker News Reader

Comment by nitemice | Hacker News Reader

I totally agree, except for your comment about the update system. I understand why people may dislike being "forced" to do updates, but it's very much Microsoft's monthly flu-shot. Just because you're scared of needles, doesn't mean your above getting the flu. It's in everyone's best interest (not just Microsoft's, but your too) to be running the most up-to-date, secure version of Windows at all times. Maybe I don't get it because I've never used Windows in an environment where a reboot was a big deal. I personally fully shut down my Windows machine every night. Unless it's a production server (which should be running Windows Server) I don't see the problem with a monthly reboot. In the past, Windows has been pretty dodgy sometimes with how it springs updates and reboots on you, but Win10 has been much better (and the Creator update should be better again).

View on HN

> It's in everyone's best interest (not just Microsoft's, but your too) to be running the most up-to-date, secure version of Windows at all times.

This was true back when companies distinguished between bug-fixes and new features. The current fad of forcing a mixture of fixes and random changes (e.g. ads in the file browser) down users' throats is repugnant. It's like a flu shot bundled with a new nose ring.

It's in everyone's best interest (not just Microsoft's, but your too) to be running the most up-to-date, secure version of Windows at all times.

No, it isn't. It's normally in everyone's best interests to have any relevant security vulnerabilities patched, but that's an entirely different thing, as anyone who suffered the GWX fiasco can testify.

In the past, Windows has been pretty dodgy sometimes with how it springs updates and reboots on you

How so? There is plenty to criticise about the way Microsoft has screwed up Windows Update for Windows 7, and plenty of suspicion about possible ulterior motives they might have for doing so years before the end of the promised support period and not fixing it already. Maintaining a properly security-patched Windows 7 system is now next to impossible if you don't have enterprise-level admin tools, and subjectively I seem to be hearing about increasing numbers of people who are just giving up and turning off Windows Update altogether. However, at least you can do that, and in any case our Windows 7 machines never install any updates we don't want them to, nor reboot out of the blue when left unattended.

Personally, and I imagine for other people, it's more just having the ability to choose taken away.

I think for the average consumer, the system is fine but for power users or developers, it just sucks having that control taken away.

From what I understand, there have been a lot of cases where prompts are easy to overlook and time out, restarting a users computer for updates while in the middle of working.

That said, it looks like the upcoming creators update will allow you to choose the time of restarts but not what updates you receive. If you could choose your updates, this file explorer thing wouldn't probably be as big of an issue since you could just opt not to install whichever update adds it.

Of course, future updates might/probably would require it and eventually you might have to but it just feels shittier than paying for the OS outright and having control to accept or deny whatever you like.

In the upcoming creator's update, you can disable updates for 31 days. However, it says security updates are still being installed. So not exactly sure how it is going to work.

It may be referring to feature upgrades rather than the monthly updates.

>>I understand why people may dislike being "forced" to do updates, but it's very much Microsoft's monthly flu-shot. Just because you're scared of needles, doesn't mean your above getting the flu.

The difference is that sticking needles in people requires their explicit consent.

You've given consent already, by willingly installing and using Windows. If you don't like it, you're free to switch to another vendor's offering.

>I understand why people may dislike being "forced" to do updates, but it's very much Microsoft's monthly flu-shot. Just because you're scared of needles,

I've seen/had it happen too many times that I go to use a classroom or lectern or meeting room PC which someone clicked shut-down instead of log-off and now the PC is indisposed for half an hour or more.

It's also pretty annoying when configuring Windows-guest virtual machines or rather, trying to get a class of students to do it in the allotted time.

I've said it before and I'll keep ranting about it. It's not the updates. It's the way the updates force a restart while the computer is in use. In my opinion it is worth letting some users go without updates than to kill machines out from under users in full screen apps (which has happened to me), or repeatedly rip people out of games. My issue is particularly bad because for whatever reason windows randomly resets the time zone on my gaming pc (that ubuntu has no problem with), so even setting "usage hours" is not a fix. It's the most frustrating user experience I have ever had with a computer to know that it is essentially crashing intentionally on me to install updates which can take a while.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com