I don’t mind that it just forces updates. I think for the vast majority of users that’s the right call, otherwise they just won’t update shit and blame everyone but themselves for when they get viruses and whatnot. Same really for Linux if it becomes popular enough with people who really don’t know about tech.
If I was using Windows I’d want to turn that feature off ofc.
If they’re allowed to force updates then they should be legally required to separate feature updates from security patches. Only security patches should be forced.
Feature updates that change or remove features users depend on should never be forced.
I do mind that it forces updates, in the sense that it decides when it’s going to start downloading them, even if I’m in the middle of things, and also it takes too long while blocking any ability to use the machine while installing. Let me pause the download without waiting an actual minute for the update screen to load, and figure out a way to install them without completely blocking my computer, dammit!
It could definitely be better implemented. Doesn’t it have a system where it starts the download process and stuff when the computer is idle? I think some Linux distros have such a system.
Iirc the issue is that it people click later later later until it just forces itself upon the computer and of course that happens at the most inconvenient time. It should apply it somehow in the background and just automatically switch to that updated version when you next turn it on. So some sort of A/B model perhaps.
Power users and enterprise, that should be disabled by default. But for most users, you really need to force it at some point, even though it sucks
That is kind of the issue - sure, there’s janky workarounds, using an outdated version of proprietary software to try to block parts of the system from working when you don’t want them to… But in the end, that’s just one problem of many, so I kinda just never came back to windows after the incident. I just responsibly regularly update my system, and probably have a better experience and lose less time just updating manually.
It wasn’t old when I got it, bought a full license. Staying on 4, fuck 5+. I didn’t actually get it for windows updates, I just have shit internet and anything thats fucking with it when i don’t tell it to gets limited to 1KB/s, or blocked if that doesn’t work well. Just so happens to work with windows shit as well.
I’m just on w11 because maintenance is significantly easier than redoing everything.
This post is kinda annoying to respond to. Not because of what you said, but because it’s hard to map my intuitions into words and convey exactly what’s wrong with Windows in the first place.
Linux doesn’t require immediate rebooting, it assumes the user will choose the right time. And if Microsoft actually gave a shit about user autonomy, there are smarter ways to handle updates.
For example: instead of forcing updates in the middle of the fucking day, just wait until the system would normally sleep or hibernate, or when the user is clearly inactive (like at night). At that point, the system could save the current RAM state to disk, reboot with updates applied, and restore the session exactly as it was.
This isn’t sci-fi. NixOS can already do this (barring kernel changes). The fact that it works proves the concept is viable.
before anyone fucking @'s me… I get that saving RAM state across system updates could break shit. But it doesn’t have to, especially if you implement a tagging or compatibility layer to track what’s safe to resume. That kind of bridging isn’t impossible, it just takes planning.
FOSS software routinely considers edge cases like this. Microsoft doesn’t. That’s not a tech limitation; that’s just not caring about user convenience.
For starters, instead of forcing updates in the middle of the fucking day, simply wait until the computer would usually sleep/hibernate, or the user wasn’t using the computer
I think that’s what active hours is supposed to do
I don’t mind that it just forces updates. I think for the vast majority of users that’s the right call, otherwise they just won’t update shit and blame everyone but themselves for when they get viruses and whatnot. Same really for Linux if it becomes popular enough with people who really don’t know about tech.
If I was using Windows I’d want to turn that feature off ofc.
If they’re allowed to force updates then they should be legally required to separate feature updates from security patches. Only security patches should be forced.
Feature updates that change or remove features users depend on should never be forced.
I do mind that it forces updates, in the sense that it decides when it’s going to start downloading them, even if I’m in the middle of things, and also it takes too long while blocking any ability to use the machine while installing. Let me pause the download without waiting an actual minute for the update screen to load, and figure out a way to install them without completely blocking my computer, dammit!
It could definitely be better implemented. Doesn’t it have a system where it starts the download process and stuff when the computer is idle? I think some Linux distros have such a system.
The update is downloaded in the background, and it asks you when to update, most folk just impulsively click later without thinking.
Hell, you can set preffered update hours!
Iirc the issue is that it people click later later later until it just forces itself upon the computer and of course that happens at the most inconvenient time. It should apply it somehow in the background and just automatically switch to that updated version when you next turn it on. So some sort of A/B model perhaps.
Power users and enterprise, that should be disabled by default. But for most users, you really need to force it at some point, even though it sucks
You can just block the update services from the internet and allow it again when you want it to update.
I use an old version of net limiter to do it and it works fine. New version is subscription trash though.
That is kind of the issue - sure, there’s janky workarounds, using an outdated version of proprietary software to try to block parts of the system from working when you don’t want them to… But in the end, that’s just one problem of many, so I kinda just never came back to windows after the incident. I just responsibly regularly update my system, and probably have a better experience and lose less time just updating manually.
It wasn’t old when I got it, bought a full license. Staying on 4, fuck 5+. I didn’t actually get it for windows updates, I just have shit internet and anything thats fucking with it when i don’t tell it to gets limited to 1KB/s, or blocked if that doesn’t work well. Just so happens to work with windows shit as well.
I’m just on w11 because maintenance is significantly easier than redoing everything.
This post is kinda annoying to respond to. Not because of what you said, but because it’s hard to map my intuitions into words and convey exactly what’s wrong with Windows in the first place.
Linux doesn’t require immediate rebooting, it assumes the user will choose the right time. And if Microsoft actually gave a shit about user autonomy, there are smarter ways to handle updates.
For example: instead of forcing updates in the middle of the fucking day, just wait until the system would normally sleep or hibernate, or when the user is clearly inactive (like at night). At that point, the system could save the current RAM state to disk, reboot with updates applied, and restore the session exactly as it was.
This isn’t sci-fi. NixOS can already do this (barring kernel changes). The fact that it works proves the concept is viable.
before anyone fucking @'s me… I get that saving RAM state across system updates could break shit. But it doesn’t have to, especially if you implement a tagging or compatibility layer to track what’s safe to resume. That kind of bridging isn’t impossible, it just takes planning.
FOSS software routinely considers edge cases like this. Microsoft doesn’t. That’s not a tech limitation; that’s just not caring about user convenience.
I think that’s what active hours is supposed to do
I think the operative word phrase is “supposed to”
Anecdotally… It doesn’t seem to exist.