Hacker News Reader

Comment by vijucat | Hacker News Reader

> stuff like your OS restarting behind your back whenever you lock your screen and walk away

Maybe it's been a couple of years since you tried Windows? Right now, if you go to the Windows Update part of Settings, the top 2 options are:

a) "Pause updates for 7 days" and

b) "Change active hours", which can be used to specify an 18-hour window within which, "We won't automatically restart your device during this time"

It's quite straightforward.

View on HN

Wait, you can’t set it up so that it won’t restart itself? In case it isn’t obvious, I am not a windows user.

No. Sooner or later, you will have to let it update. Updates are important, and Microsoft doesn't want the service calls they're going to get if you don't update and something breaks or you get hacked.

So just like "your contract with the [TV] network is you're going to watch the spots", your contract with Microsoft is you're going to install the updates, and you consent to be spied on, and...

>Microsoft doesn't want the service calls they're going to get

Does anybody ever thought "Ouch, Windows broke again! Time to call Microsoft helpdesk"?

(side note: I think updates would generate more issues and calls, not less)

Not through that menu, but it can be done through the policy editor. You can also just disable the update service if you want to.

It's a shame that anti-Microsoft zealots use Hacker News to spread lies. I don't know what trying to restrict people's choices is supposed to accomplish for our industry.

You are laying it on a bit thick there. How can you justify the next stage of the embrace-extend-extinguish cycle and spying on users as enabling more choice?

> b) "Change active hours", which can be used to specify an 18-hour window within which, "We won't automatically restart your device during this time"

Why are you lying? That part has been there for a long time and doesn't work anyway, just google for 'windows 10 ignores active hours'.

> Why are you lying?

See, this is why Linux zealots don't effect any change in others. When OP wrote something incorrect about Windows, in my perception, I gave him the benefit of doubt ("Maybe you haven't been using Windows in recent years"). But when I wrote something incorrect, in your perception, you straightaway jumped to "lying".

And it's not as if you don't know that the possibility exists. You wrote, "just google for 'windows 10 ignores active hours'", which shows that you know that I possibly do not know about this.

And yes, I have no idea if this is truly the case. I suppose Microsoft determines that some updates are critical security patches and will push them through despite attempts to postpone indefinitely.

Of course, if they allowed you to postpone critical updates and you got hacked, then it's, "OMG!! This evil corporation WANTED me to get hacked, that's why I use Linux", right? You're hopeless, and I will not be wasting further time replying to you.

Edit: I did that Google search and found that Windows ignores Active Hours in the sense that it still downloads the updates. But it does not Restart the PC. I could be wrong, but I'd appreciate if you can state it politely.

> But when I wrote something incorrect, in your perception, you straightaway jumped to "lying".

Because the entire tone of your original post was written in a way to imply that the OP hadn't done the due diligence. The end of your post was quite telling in "It's quite straightforward."

I just don't understand how come there are so many pro-Microsoft comments lately justifying everything bad that they are doing. It feels like arguing with a pure-Microsoft IT department, everything good that happens in Windows is good and everything bad is user mistake and could have never happened.

> Edit: I did that Google search and found that Windows ignores Active Hours in the sense that it still downloads the updates. But it does not Restart the PC. I could be wrong, but I'd appreciate if you can state it politely.

And this same google search shows that this does happen:

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10...

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/window...

> Because the entire tone of your original post was written in a way to imply that the OP hadn't done the due diligence.

You have a problem. The lenses you are wearing make everything look negative.

> It's quite straightforward

In my mind, this was a statement assuring him that it is not complicated; Windows settings can sometimes be complicated, such as involving Registry hacks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com