Hacker News Reader

Comment by kefka | Hacker News Reader

And the reason why people were suggesting to turn off Windows Update was precisely because of malware payloads directly from Microsoft.

"Do you want to upgrade to Windows 10? Press the hidden button to cancel, otherwise upgrade commences." This is how malware works.... But published and pushed by MS's own channels. And his jab at people who say that turning off WU is similar to anti-vaxxers is completely inane and false - we know the damage Microsoft has done to user's computers.

In reality, I'd rather they upgrade to Linux. Those machines wouldn't get bit by this, unless you run the executable with WINE. But I blame MS for being spammy and spyware-y and malware-y, which encouraged users to turn off harassing and onerous updates.

View on HN

No, most people turned it off because they didn't want updates interrupting them. You are vastly overestimating who cares about "MS malware".

Oh no. The forced updates were the 'gift' for running Windows 10. Although I would say this is also certainly a part of it.

I also have more than a few stories of people hiring me precisely due to a hijacked OS install of Win10, accompanied by slower machine and worse usability. It only takes a few of those and a whole social circle will warn about it (because of the time and harassment).

In fact, I remember this getting so bad, that local news media was talking about how to stop having your machine hacked by MS with a forced Win10 install. In all honesty, if this were you or I, we'd be facing CFAA charges for this shit.

I have an application that stopped working in creators update. So now compatibility issues crop up even though its technically still Win10.

microsoft needs to change how they push updates.

If I have a desktop pc and I shutdown, I don't mind an update. but if it's a stealth download of windows 10 pro when I have home, then NO.

if people never shutdown, then yes maybe force a reboot for critical updates. but windows needs to figure that out.

if I shutdown a laptop because i'm running out of battery, then updating windows for 30 minutes is not a good idea.

and sometimes you'll get 30 updates in one go when I've shutdown the PC every day and it should have installed a few in that timeframe.

I'm still inclined to blame that on MS really. Poor ergonomics. I can understand the OS telling me to reboot if I haven't restarted the computer in a few days after an update took place but there's no reason to harass me immediately after an update got installed (unless it's a critical 0-day patch I suppose).

But really, it's getting worse. I remember seeing a bunch of articles last month about how to preemptively defend against the "creator's update" because it came bundled with a bunch of software people didn't want. They use windows update as a trojan horse to install new applications, that sets a very bad precedent.

I've even stopped urging my friends and colleagues to enable auto-updates because I'm worried that they'll end up having windows auto-update to a new version and break something and then I'll have to help them through it. I just can't be bothered anymore.

Your last paragraph is confusing. It seems those people rely on your support. Are you really saying you'd rather deal with potential results of them not upgrading than with the upgrade failures? I'm assuming that if they come to you with one, the also do with the other.

Well it's just that one position is more comfortable than the other. If they don't update and have an issue then it's on them. If I insist they turn on Windows update and then something goes wrong then it's on me. It's a bit cowardly but as a Linux/BSD guy I just can't stand doing Windows support anymore. Every version is worse than the last, everything is dumbed down to the max and when something goes wrong you're screwed unless you're a PowerShell wizard.

The other day I helped a friend set up a new computer, we installed a brand new (paid for) Windows 10 on it, straight from the Microsoft-provided DVD.

It worked just fine for a few hours, then it would get stuck in a reboot loop continuously. You'd log in and 10 seconds later it'd hard reboots.

Given the brutality of the crash I assumed a driver issue or something like that. Turns out it's just Windows failing to install an update and crashing the OS for some reason. So I thought "well, let's just boot up and quickly disable auto-updates". You can't do that. "Well let's boot up in safe mode". Nothing works in safe mode, you can't access Windows update (the page remains blank). We ended up downloading an updated version of windows and reinstalling it.

I have a Windows 10 PC that I use for gaming, the creator's update installed itself the other day. Amongst other niceties it added a MS edge link in my taskbar and changed my desktop wallpaper. I also noticed that it tries to argue with you when you try to change the default browser from Edge to something else ("We're good now, we promise!!"). Minor details, nothing major but it adds up to a general distrust for the OS and the feeling that I'm not in charge of my own computer.

I just can't put up with that nonsense anymore. If my friends want support they'll run Linux, otherwise I'll let them deal with Microsoft's support or whatever.

The best part about not using Windows outside of work is that I can now legitimately tell 99% of the people I know that I don't know how to use their system (Windows or OS X).

You don't get free service from lawyers, accountants, doctors, or mechanics, I don't see why people expect free help from me. I used to help people, but I've realized how limited my free time is, and I prefer not to spend time doing work-like activities outside of work.

I will direct people to the appropriate resource if they ask for advice though.

The only people who get free tech support from me indefinitely are my mother, my father, and my sister. Realistically it's mostly my mother, as the other two are good enough with computers to not need help most of the time.

> If my friends want support they'll run Linux, otherwise I'll let them deal with Microsoft's support or whatever.

Dealing with Microsoft's support is quite an experience, I think I would be better off talking to some indian "anti-malware" "security experts" that would install remote controlling software and would tell you some fancy tech words that you could listen to while they're at it.

It's not Microsoft's fault that you can't say "no", though.

That's not my point. Enabling Windows Update shouldn't be a trade-off. The fact that disabling it constitutes a quality-of-life improvement for many demonstrates that Microsoft is doing something terribly wrong.

I should be able to tell my friends "yes, you should turn on auto updates, there's absolutely no reason not to" without having to follow with any caveats like "oh well, it can upgrade your OS, reboot on you when you don't expect it and change the ergonomics of your desktop without asking you but in the end it's worth it for the security updates, and it's not like you have a choice anyway".

Not that MS is completely without fault, but we have to remember that they're supporting an infinite amount of configurations. Apple's OSX (on the other hand) is supposed to support a limit configuration controlled by Apple. It's a recipe for disaster.

Supporting an infinite number of configurations has nothing to do with installing arbitrary apps that you never wanted, automatically changing your default apps and wallpaper, and silently turning back on various spying "features" that you had intentionally turned off.

I was mainly replying to this line:

> I should be able to tell my friends "yes, you should turn on auto updates, there's absolutely no reason not to"

The anniversary update was mainly a shit show. It was a staggered update that cause issues for many folks. Some people kept getting fail update errors. Others got stuck in boot loops. Others lost certain device functionality. If you were able to get it to successfully install without hitch, it broke some things for a non-trivial amount of people.

Your comment is spot on, but it's not what I was talking about.

> most people turned it off because they didn't want updates interrupting them

Bingo. For a while, Microsoft was really good about not requiring restarts to install updates. I haven't had a restart-free update since I installed Win10.

Outside of the US, it is a thing to have a policy of disabling windows update for a variety of reasons among which a significant one is to allow the computer security agencies to audit the updates and remove any MS provided malware.

For example, my wife had to work from home one day -- fairly rare occurrence -- and it was at that moment at 9:00am that Windows 10 decided to update and reboot with no way to cancel and the entire process took well over an hour.

That should be unacceptable and I don't know why it's not.

I have updates set to download but not install automatically and I periodically manually install them. Microsoft's active-hours thing is BS too as it must be less than 12 hours. I honestly don't care as much if my machine reboots between 1:00am and 7:00am but apparently that's not enough time.

I'd love to pick the brain of the product owner who decided that 12 hours is the maximum acceptable time for an "active" period. Most people only sleep 8 hours or less, so there's easily at least 16 hours in the day that could easily be used for computing.

How long does it take to install updates anyway? Why can't I just set my inactive period to 4-6am?

Less egregious but still awful: updates that then have ngen randomly consuming half your cpu for hours because ms is too cheap to make native .net binaries remotely.

And also taking multiple Gb of your hdd for the sake of optimizing a one time executed update.

When you have a small SSD it sucks.

This is even worse when your freshly deployed AWS instances run like shit for the first hour too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com