Say no to automatic updates?

[weamish]

A friend of mine called because his computer was freezing every few minutes. He was in the middle of an online exam, due the next day. He was tearing his hair out, ready to go purchase a new computer. Eventually I figured out that update 2823324 was the cause of his problem.

Seems to me this is completely unacceptable OS behavior. If MS can effectively destroy a computer through its own updates, how can we recommend that users leave the automatic update setting in place? Shouldn't the OS have the ability to recognize that it's creating the problem, and fix it internally?

...Steve

 

[Britton30]

They know about it. http://www.sevenforums.com/windows-...-uninstalling-kb-2823324-a-4.html#post2361774
but so far are doing nothing.
I have updates et to check but let me choose whether to download and install. I have the KB2923324 installed but no bad issues. It seems to mess with PCs that have Kaspersky installed.

 

[Joan Archer]

So far there have been no problems with hubby's machines, a desktop and laptop, with the update installed, but I uninstalled it on my Windows 7 machine even though I'd not noticed any problems.
I just took Microsoft's advice and uninstalled for the time being.

 

[weamish]

His computer did not have Kaspersky installed.

There's simply no way that a non-techie would be able to diagnose this. Without help, they'd be forced to do what my friend was about to do - trash the computer and buy another one. Perhaps this is Microsoft's new growth strategy.

Ironically, a new computer might well have ended up with the same issue after the updates were installed.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Bugs happen. No one can be expected to write as much code as M$ has to without an occasional bug sneaking through, especially when writing for the huge number of hardware and software combinations that are out there. That is the reason I set my computer to download updates but not install them until I tell it to, generally three or four days after the download. This normally gives me enough time to find out if anything went pear shaped with one of the updates.

 

[robinb9]

I never have updates set to do them automatically. I have it set to let me know when they are available, this way I check to see how everyone is wethering before i even do the updates, then i do them in batches of 2 only just in case, when you throw them all on you never know which ones are creating havouc. In batches of 2 or 1, it might take a bit longer but at least i am not going to find a dead computer or at least scratching my head trying to figure out which of the 10 caused the problem

 

[weamish]

Sorry, but "bugs happen" just shouldn't cut it. 30 years into the era of personal computers, a user shouldn't have to worry that explicitly following Microsoft's instructions could turn his PC into a paperweight. The vast majority of users never touch the default settings, and those who are less sophisticated are the least likely to turn off auto-update.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Sorry, but "bugs happen" just shouldn't cut it. 30 years into the era of personal computers, a user shouldn't have to worry that explicitly following Microsoft's instructions could turn his PC into a paperweight. The vast majority of users never touch the default settings, and those who are less sophisticated are the least likely to turn off auto-update.

True, bugs shouldn't happen. For that matter, if M$ had gotten it right from the word go, there would be no need for updates. However, considering how complex OS code is and the pretty much infinite combinations of software hardware that are possible, there is no way in Earth, Heaven, or Hell anyone, other than God Himself, is going to even come close to getting it right the first, or even the 100th, time.

 

[weamish]

Yes, but there are bugs and there are bugs. In this case, MS destroyed peoples' ability to use their computers, while taking no responsibility. Gotta wonder how many folks figured their PC had simply died and needed to be replaced. Not an unreasonable conclusion when getting blue screens every few seconds...

 

[strollin]

Sorry, but "bugs happen" just shouldn't cut it. 30 years into the era of personal computers, a user shouldn't have to worry that explicitly following Microsoft's instructions could turn his PC into a paperweight. The vast majority of users never touch the default settings, and those who are less sophisticated are the least likely to turn off auto-update.

I guess you have never done any software development. Please show me one major software product anywhere that is completely bug free. With millions of lines of code and an infinite number of possible permutations, it's virtually impossible to write code with zero bugs. That doesn't mean that software companies don't strive for it but it's simply not going to happen.

I have a lab full of test machines as well as a number of my own personal machines that are all set to automatically update. I don't seem to ever encounter problems due to my machine's being automatically updated while others do. I guess I'm just lucky.

 

[LMiller7]

All non-trivial code has bugs. That has been the case from the earliest days of computers and it remains so today. As long as code is written by imperfect humans (all of us) that isn't going to change. Having computers write the code wouldn't help because these computers themselves would have been created by humans and thus contain bugs.

I understand that NASA has a system in place that reduces software bugs to a very low level, but not eliminate then completely. This is important because a software bug could mean the loss of a multi-billion dollar space craft, plus the lives of the astronauts that man it. I understand that an early unmanned space craft was lost due to a bug in a Fortran program. The problem is that this system is very expensive. NASA can afford it because even with this high cost the software is still only a fraction of the total cost of the space program.

The cost of implementing such a system would be prohibitive for any company (including Microsoft) selling software to a cost conscious public.

Like it or not, software bugs are a fact of life. That isn't going to change.

 

[Parman]

isn't that why installing updates creates restore points......

 

[Alejandro85]

Every program can and will have bugs, after all is done by people, which like everyone has can and will make mistakes, it's normal in the lifecycle of every software. Some bugs are more serious than others, but this one was important enough for MS to recommend uninstalling of the affected update. Besides, in the worst case, it would not trash the machine, but only the Windows install if it becomes that badly damaged, which hasn't been the case, just a BSOD or two.

I dislike automatic updates, not only of Windows but for everything, but for a different reason. They force me to reboot and wait a long time in moments when I don't expect it, possibly just rebooting in the middle of something without my consent. Introduction of bugs is another concern, but that's mitigated by waiting a few weeks after the update release so, if anything happens, you don't get affected.

 

[King Arthur]

It should be noted and understood that buggy updates on Windows are a minority, most updates (read: 99% of them) issued by Microsoft do not cause damage to the updated computers involved. Unless you know what you are doing and/or have a reason to not have automatic updates on, it is usually far more beneficial to have it active and let Windows grab any updates it considers critical.

 

[marsmimar]

His computer did not have Kaspersky installed.

There's simply no way that a non-techie would be able to diagnose this. Without help, they'd be forced to do what my friend was about to do - trash the computer and buy another one. Perhaps this is Microsoft's new growth strategy.

Ironically, a new computer might well have ended up with the same issue after the updates were installed.

Everyone should get in the habit of creating periodic system images to an external hard drive. To me, it's no different than having a spare tire in my car. "Stuff" happens and having a spare tire or a spare image of the hard drive can get you back on the road in minutes. No need to trash the vehicle . . . or the computer.

 

[Britton30]

That's a bit like junking the car when it runs out of gas. People do like to slam MS a lot, not that they don't deserve it from time to time. See Win 8.

 

[Golden]

Sorry, but "bugs happen" just shouldn't cut it.

I agree its unfortunate, but lucky for your friend he had you to turn to.

Windows 7 has more than 50 million lines of code. Are you saying that its completely inconceivable that an error in one of those lines of code should exist?

Thankfully, this sort of error is exceptionally rare. Microsoft does take responsibility : they acknowledged the error, and no doubt there will be a fix soon. Its not not all doom and gloom

Regards,
Golden

 

[Wenda]

I never run with auto-update turned on, I like to know what is going onto the machine, and I insist on being able to choose when to let it do so.
Especially with my low monthly data-allowance.

Wenda.

 

[LMiller7]

One of the problems that Microsoft faces is that they are maintaining an OS that runs on hardware they did not build and running applications they did not create. In many cases application developers are doing things that were never intended, and in some cases specifically warned not to. Yet, Microsoft goes to considerable lengths to ensure that misbehaving applications do not cause problems. Many of the problems that appear in Windows are not Microsoft's fault.

 

[weamish]

At the very least, the offending update should be auto-uninstalled. The OS is qualitatively different from other software. There's something very wrong if Microsoft can effectively brick a few hundred thousand computers.