Say no to automatic updates?

[marsmimar]

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.

It's my understanding that Microsoft is still working on an auto-uninstall feature. In the interim, and until it's perfected, they did provide people a warning. Didn't you get it?

View attachment 264262

 

[DavidE]

:roflmao:

 

[Alejandro85]

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.

Even if that "auto-uninstall" did exist, for it to be of any use, you should have automatic updates enabled for it to be of any use.

The OS isn't different to any other program in that sense. Anything that goes into the kernel can (and happens frequently) destroy a Windows install. This includes not only Windows updates, but anything that loads a kernel-mode driver with automatic startup, such as all device drivers, antiviruses, firewalls, file system filters, and of course rootkits

Besides, this particular bug isn't that serious to merit a clean install. Once MS issued the warning, everyone knew to blow up THAT update only, and it would restore the stability. A restore point would have done so too.

 

[Compufix]

I find it odd that on my main PC I have updates set to 'let me choose etc', but the machine still periodically installs updates on shutdown.
This is something I haven't got round to rectifying just yet.

 

[marsmimar]

I find it odd that on my main PC I have updates set to 'let me choose etc', but the machine still periodically installs updates on shutdown.
This is something I haven't got round to rectifying just yet.

From Microsoft's Update Service Privacy Statement:

"If you turn on the Update Services, regardless of which setting you have chosen, required updates to some components of the service will be downloaded and installed automatically without further notice to you. If you would prefer not to receive required updates, turn off the Update Services."

Source (Scroll down to Choice and control)

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

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.

 

[Compufix]

I find it odd that on my main PC I have updates set to 'let me choose etc', but the machine still periodically installs updates on shutdown.
This is something I haven't got round to rectifying just yet.

From Microsoft's Update Service Privacy Statement:

"If you turn on the Update Services, regardless of which setting you have chosen, required updates to some components of the service will be downloaded and installed automatically without further notice to you. If you would prefer not to receive required updates, turn off the Update Services."

Source (Scroll down to Choice and control)

Which makes 'let me choose when/how..' etc somewhat worthless.

 

[Teerex]

I find it odd that on my main PC I have updates set to 'let me choose etc', but the machine still periodically installs updates on shutdown.
This is something I haven't got round to rectifying just yet.

From Microsoft's Update Service Privacy Statement:

"If you turn on the Update Services, regardless of which setting you have chosen, required updates to some components of the service will be downloaded and installed automatically without further notice to you. If you would prefer not to receive required updates, turn off the Update Services."

Source (Scroll down to Choice and control)

Which makes 'let me choose when/how..' etc somewhat worthless.

No, it's not. But if you are using the servicing stack in any way, even ''to allow you to choose when/how'', Microsoft has to keep the servicing stack up to date for it to be reliable.

 

[DavidE]

If I understand this correctly, I can see what Compufix is saying, and agree.
Why aren't the "servicing stack" updates handled the same way?
Users that choose to be notified, could be notified for these "servicing stack" updates the same as other updates.
Then, it's the responsibility of the user to decide if/when to install the update...

I don't use automatic updates but I think it is the best default option.
Most people I help do not know how, why, or when to manually install updates.
If the default was not auto, I think most users would not get any updates.
It's unfortunate this person had an issue.
I think MS is much better than many other companies in how it handles updates.

 

[Alejandro85]

Problem with Windows autoupdating itself is that it may force to do a reboot at a time when you don't want it, and (small) network bandwidth is consumed when you are doing something better with it. I really prefer for those reasons to decide myself when and what to install. Besides, I agree with Wenda (at #18). And we can't deny that the OP has a good point, even if the chance is small, a bad kernel update might give problems to the whole system.

And particular to Windows updates, I really, but really, it's hard for me to thing of a tangible benefit of installing any of them for the common user, maybe the last one being SP2 for XP. I install them anyway after some time, but I always had that doubt, if they are worth.

 

[King Arthur]

I personally run with automatic updates completely turned off as well. I go to Windows Update on an annual or semi-annual basis to just get the updates in one big lump after checking to see if any are updates I would disagree with.

However, I do have automatic updates turned on for the home server (which runs largely autonomously).