Hacker News Reader

Comment by sundvor | Hacker News Reader

It never stops to amaze me how unwilling most people are to explore the latest Win10 options to always defer updates by number of days (eg stay a week behind on feature updates to let others be more on the cutting edge), or even temporarily freeze the windows update service by up to a two digit number of days.

If I ever wanted to be sure that no updates took place I'd use the freeze.

Switching OS might be a solution, but it is worth having a look at these first. The upside is never being behind on patches, and there are actually some bloody useful fixes coming down the pipeline especially as far as security is concerned.

View on HN

I think the problem isn't just that Windows updates happen immediately by default. It's that Windows updates when you boot up your computer.

See, turning on a computer is an explicit declaration that you want to use it. Windows updates ignores this declaration by taking that time to itself. It doesn't matter if I can defer the update by how many days if one day it will stop/delay me from using my computer when I want to. Almost no one outside of IT Administrators turns on computers solely for updates and maintenance.

Contrast that with Linux (Ubuntu distro in mind) where updates happen when the computer is shutting down. In contrast with turning your computer on, shutting down is a declaration that you no longer need your computer. That's the OS' cue to chime in and perform some routine maintenance.

I wonder how much of this is an architectural problem. The first time I remember being frustrated with this Windows behavior was in Vista. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that 95, 98, and XP used to do updates on shut down. I know Vista isn't fondly remembered but, gee, did they deliberately make it so that it updates when you start your computer? Why couldn't a company who takes pride in backwards compatibility keep the old update behavior?

To wit, people make a big deal about how immediately can you use your computer (i.e., start-up times) but all your fancy-schmancy SSD + hyperthreading set-up is useless if Windows decides to update just before that one presentation you've spent weeks on. Updating on shut down is the user-friendly way.

Fair enough, and thanks for that info. I haven't really looked at it from the starting up point of view as the shutting down one.

For whatever reason it hasn't impacted me, and that's also having a laptop that only gets irregular use as well as my regular desktop, but I'll be more observant about this going forward.

For posterity, I realise I have been bitten by this.

Updates may have an "on startup" component to them. If you shut down, currently you are forced to install updates on the shutdown - this happens silently, without permission. But: It will just do the shutdown side - so that the next time you start, you're stuck there looking at the "startup part" where updates continue to install.

MS ought to fix this, either by changing how updates are installed in two phases, or to incorporate an automatic "shutdown/install"=>"start windows, run updates"=>"shut down" option.

Also they should let you just shut down the PC without having to install updates, especially if you don't have time to do so.

Currently, as a user, the only really safe thing to do would be to "update and restart" followed by a shutdown.

My memory might be wrong, but I don't think Windows 95 had automatic updates at all. They were tacked on when Windows security vulnerabilities became such a big deal in the late 1990s. Automatic updates felt like a hack in the beginning, and it feels like they still are.

Yeah my bad. 95 definitely didn't have automatic updates. Had to come in the form of the 95 Plus! CD-ROM.

Maybe even 98 didn't have automatic updates, but I won't be surprised if 98SE already had this capability in some form.

> Automatic updates felt like a hack in the beginning, and it feels like they still are.

iOS made them pretty seamless and second-nature, and I can’t recall macOS ever ruining my day because of forced updates.

Well the attitude was that they are now "proud" of there updates and the new features they give away, so they want to shove that into the users face on starting up.

With a little creativity, one can redecorate routine maintenance into a parade of glorious futurism. And of course that parade needs to be the first you experience on the computers return to conciousness.

Something similar happens on Surface updates.

>Contrast that with Linux (Ubuntu distro in mind) where updates happen when the computer is shutting down.

Since when?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think updates should happen when the user commands them to happen, not when the computer (or operating system vendor) decides when they should happen. If the user affirmatively commands the computer to update at a certain time, or on start-up or shutdown, fine. But why are we letting the operating system run the show?

Because most users would never set this and thus would never update.

It's not about that. Advanced users don't even have the option any more. MS could hide it deep in settings to disable update with 10 "are you sure" security risk dialogs. "yes i know the risks" etc, but no.... None of us can be trusted.

If you have to go into the settings to get a good behavior, it's useless for 95%+ of users.

On the projects I've worked on, most people never open the preferences or settings menu.

I routinely use Linux (Arch, Gentoo, Ubuntu, CentOS, several others) Windows (98 - 10 (yes, really 98), server 2000 to 2016) and I speak quite a few other OS dialects (NetWare and FreeBSD fex).

The worst for updates, by far is Windows 10 and server 2016. I'd better qualify that. Gentoo can take a really long time to crunch through say 1GB of source code if not updated for a few months. Firefox can take an hour or so on its own and LibreOffice is a whopper as well. Older Windows versions, say 2008 R2 can take a good hour some months. NetWare updates need a skilled surgeon (or someone who can read a manual). pfSense (FreeBSD for me) upgrades can be a bit fraught but generally not. However all of those will get you there eventually.

W10 and 2016 are different beasts altogether. They do a pretty decent job of hiding the nitty gritty away from you and I actually like the auto "just do it already" approach and can set "active hours" to tailor the experience. However, it takes bloody ages to run and often needs more than one reboot - sometimes three (ie update, reboot, something doesn't work, reboot, still doesn't work, reboot, now it works).

The error messages you get are awful and generally need forensic analysis elsewhere - a naiive Google will get you to some MS forum and a suggestion to reinstall Windows.

Switching OS is not really a solution but whining about the update experience within potential hearing (HN) of those that might be able to do something about it is a good idea 8)

Though my range of operating systems isn't anything like as wide as yours, but still across a pretty broad range of systems, Windows, especially 10, comes out by far the worst.

My other pet hate on Windows that's been out of control since 7, and getting worse with each generation, is the insane hidden wastage under /Windows that simply constantly grows.

After it's a year old, between winsxs and the various installer and update folders you can easily burn 50-100GB of space under ./Windows for an OS that took say 3GB to install. You can clean up only some of it.

No other OS gets anywhere near this idiocy.

Just one note, once you pause, you apparently cannot pause again until all deferred updates have been installed. So yes it helps, but only for so long. The other deferment options seem like a more reasonable way to just purposely lag behind major changes.

Even deferring updates is not really good about being in your face enough about having a pending update ready, so eventually it's going to update by itself anyway.

Regarding switching to Mac, it never ceases to amaze me all of my colleagues who opted for a company Mac when all the productivity tools they need run natively on Windows, and sometimes not on Mac at all. So they set up a Windows partition which is never big enough and they always have problems with. Their choice was purely out of fan-boyism, and they all regret it.

They regret choosing a Mac? Or they regret that they were offered a Mac by a company whose productivity tools only work on Windows for some reason?

Have they tried VMs like Parallels or “translation layers” like CrossOver [0]?

[0] https://www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover-mac (don’t mind the old style website.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com