The Ability to Pause Updates in Windows 10 Isn’t Enough

Posted on January 10, 2017 by Paul Thurrott in Windows 10 with 64 Comments

The Ability to Pause Updates in Windows 10 Isn't Enough

As you may know, Microsoft is adding the ability to pause updates in Windows 10 version 1703. While this addition is well-intentioned, it doesn’t go far enough.

Fortunately, there’s still time for Microsoft to correct this mistake: It will not complete the Creators Update—which will upgrade Windows 10 to version 1607—for another two months.

So let’s review. As I noted in 2016 Was a Monster of a Year for Windows 10, Microsoft spent much of last year scrambling to fix the problems it created with its Windows as a service strategy. The problem is so bad that I called on Microsoft to consider a formalReliable Computing Initiative.

But the staged rollout of the buggy Anniversary Update provides some clues for a potential solution: By staging or delaying updates for normal users, Microsoft can gather real-world telemetry data as it goes, and this ever-growing body of information can inform the speed at which updates are deployed. That is, when things are working properly, the update can go out faster, and when things are not, it can be scaled back.

But the problem with Windows 10 for far too many people, of course, is that they no longer have control over updates. And while I think it’s OK that we’ve crossed this line into a future where everyone needs to be kept up to date, my issue is that there’s no gray area. You are either getting updates or you’re not.

But to its credit, Microsoft is adding a feature in the Creators Update—in Windows 10 version 1703, that is—that will let you “pause” non-critical updates for up to 35 days. This feature first appeared in Windows Insider Preview build 15002 this week, though it was also in a leaked build we discussed at the end of 2016.

“Microsoft had previously promised to make Windows Update less painful, and proving how easy that can be, build 14997 includes a new Pause Updates option in Windows Update that lets you temporarily pause the delivery of new updates for up to 35 days,” I wrote at that time. “This should nicely answer complaints about the quality of newly-released updates, since the more pragmatic will be able to hold off until they’re proven safe. (Some updates, like those for Windows Defender, will of course continue to come through on the normal schedule, Microsoft notes.)”

But now that this feature is public, we know a bit more. And I’ve also had more time to think about it.

For starters, this feature will not be available to Windows 10 Home users. Or, as Microsoft’s Dona Sarkar put it, “this capability will be available on Professional, Education, and Enterprise editions of Windows.” So not Home. (And thanks to Mary Jo Foley for pointing out that nuance to me, buried as it was in the middle of a monster blog post.)

That’s bad … and, pointless: Why on earth would Home users be excluded from something like this? It’s not a premium feature. It’s a right, in my opinion. It’s like Microsoft is using this audience as guinea pigs who can test potentially buggy updates out in the wild and then suffer from problems because they’re too poor to buy a more expensive version of the OS.

But even the ability to pause updates for 35 days isn’t quite right. It isn’t enough.

In the post about build 15002, Microsoft never explains why they’ve added this feature. And that’s interesting, right? They are implicitly agreeing that my complaints about the update reliability issues are valid and true. Why on earth would Microsoft let people delay updates otherwise?

That is rather amazing when you think about it.

So it’s a fact: Windows 10 updates are not reliable. So much so that Microsoft is taking a small step to ensure that technical/educated users can find an option to protect themselves from this problem.

Folks, that needs to be the default. Non-security updates should always be delayed by 35 days. And only those users who actually want updates immediately should be forced to find an option to open themselves up to this problem.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Isn’t that what Windows Insiders are for? And if Microsoft just delays all updates for 35 days, won’t that just delay the problems (when they happen) by 35 days?

No. No to both of those.

First of all, there isn’t a single Windows Insider who signed up to test the bug and security fixes that make up the updates I’m talking about. These guys—all 7+ million of them—signed up so they can see new features, which will appear in a future version of Windows 10, as soon as possible. They’re enthusiasts, for the most part.

And as for the notion that delaying non-critical updates by default will just delay the problems, simply making this a feature—in this case, the ability to turn off the update delay—will provide Microsoft and the broader community with what it really needs: An audience of people who explicitly do want updates immediately on production machines and are thus signing up to be guinea pigs. This audience—some percentage of the 400+ million Windows 10 users out there—will do the work that Microsoft is now silently requiring of the unwashed masses. Which is wrong for them to do.

But I’m pragmatic. I know that Microsoft will never do what I’m asking. So I’m ready with a middle ground compromise. And it goes like this.

During Setup, perhaps, or the first time a Windows 10 user visits Windows Update, prompt them with the choices—delay non-critical updates by 35 days, or don’t—and then actually explain what each means. Give them the choice.

That’s all. Give Windows 10 users the choice.

Remember, Microsoft is admitting here that its updates are unreliable. So there is no excuse for continuing to pump potentially buggy updates at hundreds of millions of users without at least giving them the option to know what they can do about this.

It’s common sense. And it’s the right thing to do.

 

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (69)

69 responses to “The Ability to Pause Updates in Windows 10 Isn’t Enough”

  1. Avatar

    9946

    What you're describing though sounds exactly what the Release Preview ring of the Windows Insiders program is. Releases are meant to come out to this first, and then once they've been tested and installed they get installed to the masses. All you're proposing that's different is that it's called something different and maybe doesn't require signing up

  2. Avatar

    265

    "They are implicitly agreeing that my complaints about the update reliability issues are valid and true."

    I think instead that Microsoft is implicitly agreeing that most Enterprise IT departments and IT people (by training and selective temperament) are whiny, lazy, obstreperous, cantankerous and frightened of and resistant to change.  But it's not politic to say so plainly.

    Nonetheless, I don't think PT's suggestion is a bad one, and I'd guess it will ultimately be adopted by Microsoft.  I don't assume that their reluctance to bring this deferral-by-default is just petulant and "pointless" on Microsoft's part.  PT under-credits and under-appreciates the difficulties of moving the masses into this new paradigm of always-be-updating.  Microsoft has sunk years of blood and treasure into this hi-risk, under-fire, complex strategic maneuver, and they don't want to undercut the important consumer-psychology gains they've made.  35 days today, advance-to-the-rear, whats-wrong-with-WindowsXP? tomorrow. 

     

     

    • Avatar

      127

      In reply to mmcpher:

      Agreed. And there isn't one OS on this planet, where the consumer isn't the guinea pig. So to call out MS on this, isn't right IMHO

    • Avatar

      180

      In reply to mmcpher:

      No. For years, I've been carrying the torch of "let's update faster" at the organizations I've worked at. And I've finally stopped. The places we've deployed Windows 10, we've seen problem after problem after problem with updates. This is not something we ever saw with Windows 7. It's not something we saw with 8 or 8.1. Sure, I saw isolated reports of issues, but it was a rarity in the wild. These days I expect to see issues with Windows 10's updates every 2 or 3 months. I've seen these on my own computers, and I've seen them on clients. I've seen problems with updates on friends' computers. It feels absolutely endemic.

      That's not whining. That's real world experience. And it's a huge problem for Microsoft. A reputation for unreliability is not something they can afford.

      • Avatar

        5027

        In reply to Polycrastinator:

        We have actually not seen any issues at all with Windows 10 regarding updates at our company, a lot less issues then with Windows 8.1 that we hade before,  or even Windows 7 , except for limitations in roaming profiles in Windows 10 ...but hose are not so much issues as  a fact of how Windows 10 removed a lot of what roaming used to be able to do,  Windows 10 is having our computers running better then ever.  

      • Avatar

        430

        In reply to Polycrastinator:

        My experience matches yours almost to a T.  I've always been incredibly frustrated with the knee-jerk "let's wait" reaction of fellow ITers and have pushed for quicker adoption.  However, I've never seen the sheer quantity and variety of issues with prior OS versions that I've seen with Win10.  It's been even worse on the home and small business (ex.- I'm the de facto IT guy for family, church, friends, etc) side for me than at work.  However, I think the problem is deeper than just Windows here.  I think we're seeing the results of a highly iterative and changing OS, a highly iterative and changing Office suite (O365), highly iterative and changing browsers (Edge), communication tools (Skype), hardware drivers, and so on.  

        Bringing a "thick" OS like Windows with all of it's legacy underpinnings into the kind of release cadence we're used to seeing out of our mobile apps is a herculean task, and while I think they've done a commendable job in many ways, it's a mistake not to allow an educated (and paying) customer the option to at least delay specific non-0 day/security/critical updates indefinitely when warranted.  To clarify, I have no issue whatsoever with not making it the default option.  I have no issue with them making it something I have to specifically opt into.  I wouldn't even have an issue with them prompting me once a quarter to make sure I still want that setting on.  I think the onus is definitely on them in today's world of (in)security to press for people to stay up-to-date.  I guess I just don't have enough faith at this point that any issues introduced will get resolved within this somewhat arbitrary 35-day window and want the option to push that longer if needed.

      • Avatar

        2525

        In reply to Polycrastinator:

        That update that killed DHCP was a bad one to help with remotely.  I wasn't aware of the root cause until *after* Microsoft had fixed it.  Prior to that we just had some software on a utility laptop that would suddenly stop working on the network.

        That's the sort of device that IT used to just leave frozen in time with no updates.  Unfortunately that often acts as a great point for an intruder to stay and pivot to other parts of the network.  So update with fixes regularly....  Except that fails when they're not well tested :(

    • Avatar

      442

      In reply to mmcpher:

      Enterprise computing drives it's own upgrades if done right.  They can delay indefinitely.  Or, do the right thing and push them out as soon as they've tested it fully internally.  Why don't folks know/understand this? 

      • Avatar

        5027

        In reply to Narg:

        Exactly, can only agree :)  And the more old custom built crap you manage to get out of the Enterprise  the less issues you have as well, including when it comes to updates. And much easier and faster to test before you allow an update to be passed on to users if you dont have both feet stuck in legacy hell

  3. Avatar

    7046

    It doesn't matter how you view Insiders, and it doesn't matter why they joined the program. They're still there to find bugs and provide feedback to Microsoft. 

     

    A company that wants as many users as possible on the latest version of Windows for a variety of well-established, good reasons. Why would they make the default to keep machines out of date? 

    • Avatar

      1377

      In reply to munchieswolf:

      . . . They're still there to find bugs and provide feedback to Microsoft. . . .

      Given the issues with 1607, the Insiders aren't worth what MSFT's paying them.

      And that's the problem. Insiders aren't professional QA testers. I figure bug are reported by a lower % of Insiders experiencing bugs than telephone survey respondents. And even when they are reported, the reports lack detail.

      MSFT decided to replace paid staff with unpaid volunteers, and so far it's been an all too predictable fiasco in terms or buggy major releases.

  4. Avatar

    7510

    It's a sad commentary on what Windows is coming to that iOS updating has more choice than Windows Updates: You can continue to use any old version of iOS. It'll nag you to update (at least until you delete the massive update that it automatically downloads), but it doesn't pick a time to automatically install the latest version without your permission but, rather, you have the choice whether to update (which of course you should do when ready --- iOS updates are easy as anything).

    Honestly I've stuck with Windows 7 even though I like Windows 10 features because Windows 7 Home will not shut down my computer to install updates. I set 7 to ask me before installing updates and, if I'm not yet ready to install & restart (i.e., I have 50 browser tabs I don't want to close along with several open programs!) then I wait. I am not willing to have Windows decide that it's ready to force feed updates--as a power user I need to decide for myself that I'm ready and I agree with Paul that it's unacceptable that they don't give power users choice in updating. With the dumbing down of applications to feature-light apps that has become common Windows needs all the help it can get, and Microsoft isn't helping itself.

  5. Avatar

    268

    So I guess you are asking to go back to the days of multiple separate updates, right? Because otherwise, almost every single update is critical (perhaps those odd ones that don't come out on patch Tuesday might not be critical, but all of the patch Tuesday ones are). And since updates are monolithic (cumulative, whatever) it will be all of them. The only things really separate anymore are the drivers. And sure, most of those are not critical. But on actual updates to Windows they would need to re-architect to get rid of the large cumulative updates in order to say "here are some that are critical and here are some others that are not".

    • Avatar

      686

      In reply to JerryH:

      Does anyone have any stats on which hardware configurations were having the issues any why?  I agree that returning to the old way is not the correct way forward and without statistics its hard to help envision a solution.  I think that a sub-site at Microsoft detailing hardware issues with driver/firmware would be a better start to reliable updates.  I also would like to have a way in Windows 10 to say that x device isn't working after the last update and have a temporary way to roll back the driver while Microsoft and the hardware manufacturer review.  Perhaps the Website could log the status and expected update to the driver...

      • Avatar

        5027

        In reply to North of 49th:

        That is actually a very good idea.  Would be good if it was possible to roll back a driver  if system stop working, and when you do that you are more or less " forced"/asked nicely  to report what the issue was, ex what driver was causing issues and how, so Microsoft gets the feedback and can improve things.

        So basically:

        Updates can not be deferred/paused or what ever, they install automatically including drivers for home users.

        If you have have an issue, you can go back on a specific update, or a specific driver, and report a reason and more info.

        Next version of the driver will automatically be downloaded again as normal, but the reported update/driver will not be installed in it's current version.

         

  6. Avatar

    442

    Paul, I disagree with you on almost all points here.  Updates are essential to a healthy computing environment, especially one that is "connected"  Bugs are inevitable.  Shying away from them is not good computing.  And, yes, Insiders are for helping find and fix those sooner rather than later if possible.  I really don't understand your negativity on this.

  7. Avatar

    2435

    "First of all, there isn’t a single Windows Insider who signed up to test the bug and security fixes that make up the updates I’m talking about. These guys—all 7+ million of them—signed up so they can see new features, which will appear in a future version of Windows 10, as soon as possible. They’re enthusiasts, for the most part."

    I disagree with this, I'm registered as an Insider, but I specifically run the "Release Preview" ring for this very reason. I need the stability of the current release of Windows, but I like to be on the bleeding edge and many times app previews/updates are pushed to this ring long before they make it to regular old windows 10 (Peon Ring as I call it).

    I think Microsoft has already addressed this issue with Release Preview. I know they've had some issues and I realize with as big as Microsoft is, they really shouldn't get a pass on the issues they've had with updates.

    Perhaps a better solution is a staged rollout of all non-security updates, not just with huge forklift updates to the OS? And consumers get an update sometime within say a 60 day window after it's released based on Microsoft's confidence level of success?

    Just thinking out loud.

    • Avatar

      1872

      In reply to mtsmedly:

      Yep, I run release preview at work to be the first one to have issues if there are any, as I'm the one who can fix them. And I would think many IT guys do the same. You don't need all your devices running Fast to see new features...

  8. Avatar

    5027

    I still say, there should not be any way to pause updates for regular users. 

    Windows 10 Updates are not a problem for Enterprise IT departments because blocking updates is still possible, just like before. And it is easy to do, just like it was in Windows 7, Windows 8 and so on. 

    Problem is home users, and allow them to block updates or "pause them" is a risk that things will go back to how they where.. people not updating for months, then get infected with crap .. and then their computers can be part on reeking havoc on other peoples systems in DDoS attacks, used to send spam or any form of attacks .. 

    It sucks to not have control over updates maybe...but it sucks even more if users not caring have to much control so they can ignore updates for to long and then what?

    Having a choice in deferring Driver updates only as an option might seem less of a risk, except drivers can also contain security risks and vulnerabilities.  Seems they should be a better check before a driver is allowed to be installed in the first place. It can only be installed if it is tested properly.

    But I guess it is hard to find a balance that makes everyone happy ..but there must be something better then how horribly Windows Updates worked on Windows 7 and Vista for instance . So many times I had to help someone and noticed they have 182+ updates waiting ..they still use IE 8  and can't understand why their computer is filled with crap and why some pages does not work.. a lot of us have been there..

  9. Avatar

    5767

    Considering Windows 10 has to work on a million configurations, reliability will always be an issue with a new update. Some PCs will always be broken. I fail to see why Paul is hysterical about this.

    • Avatar

      3272

      In reply to MutualCore:

      You made the case for him. Millions of configurations and the fact that reliability will always be an issue with a new update. That is the problem. You don't force updates on people until they are reliable and some devices end up being bricked.

      Windows 10 itself was actually permanently corrupting the EDID's of certain Samsung manufactured laptop displays. Some of us who have very expensive dual GPU gaming laptops experienced this first hand. Actually happened to quite a few people. Windows 10 upgrade was installed and it bricked the displays. MS didn't want to own up, the laptop OEM's weren't accepting responsibility, so you're screwed.

      Or how about some people running Pascal generation GPU's that had their GPU fried from a recent bad driver from Nvidia. The driver was so bad they released a hotfix in 3 days. But that didn't help the people who already had it forced on them and were experiencing constant bsod's at best and fried GPU's at worst.

  10. Avatar

    5072

    I seem to remember a while back, Mary Jo saying that Microsoft had let go all their testers/QA people.  A year later, and we have a long string of broken updates and embarrassments like the Skype camera thing.

    Who could not have seen this coming?  I don't care what lies you tell yourself to excuse the number one bonehead move for destroying reliability and stability.  These things should have been tested by people who get paid to test these things.  And instead of giving us better testing, they instead bandaid it with the "Don't trust us" setting.

     

    Which may be appropriate in context, but the context is all wrong.

  11. Avatar

    127

    I think the situation is a bit more nuanced then this. I hear you loud and clear Paul when it comes to reliability, but there is a 'need for speed' as well. MS has a bit of catching up do.....

    I think it is safe to say that Windows 10 Home users are the same users running around with Android and iOS devices, often having to deal with buggy updates. It'll be no different for those same users on Win 10. Don't get me wrong, buggy updates aren't good and inexcusable, but more.....'a fact of life'?

    So Pro/Enterprise users with "critical infrastructures" having more options, makes perfect sense to me.

  12. Avatar

    5598

    "So it’s a fact: Windows 10 updates are not reliable."

    Um, really? I haven't had a problem since launch (I have a custom build at home, and use a Dell at work, and neither has experienced reliability issues), and, as I recall, the times I read about problems with Windows 10 update in articles on this website are few and far between (and, from what I have read, only affect a small subset of PCs to which it was rolled out).

    "Why on earth would Home users be excluded from something like this? It’s not a premium feature. It’s a right, in my opinion."

    Because the vast majority of Home users (most sophisticated or even semi-sophisticated users are using a version other than Home) would have no idea what the point is of delaying the update and, if you actually succeeded in successfully explaining it to them, more likely than not would not care for the option. Why provide a customer with a feature they neither requested nor want?

    • Avatar

      5615

      In reply to OMR:

      "Why provide a customer with a feature they neither requested nor want?"

      Because one size does not fit all.    # Sorry, hrlngrv. I know this isn't a complete sentence. ;-)

      "Because the vast majority of Home users (most sophisticated or even semi-sophisticated users are using a version other than Home) would have no idea what the point is of delaying the update"

      This is not only not true, it is beside the point. Lots of "sophisticated" users will have PCs at home with the Home version of Windows 10. However, due to the bandwidth-hogging issues of Windows 10's update process, having even one Windows 10 Home PC on a network can negatively impact network performance. Why should a home user, sophisticated or not, have to pay an extra $100 for Windows just for the option to (possibly) be able disable the random bandwidth-hogging behavior? This is something any user of any version of Windows was able to do with previous versions at no additional cost.

      Paul is just saying that all users should still have this choice, and I agree. It doesn't have to be the default option, but it should still be an option for all versions.

  13. Avatar

    9518

    Build updates, & hotfix updates, can sometimes be a problem, End Of Story. At one point recently I upgraded 2 copies of 10 on this rig, both identical to same version Insider builds, & one worked -- the other had to be freshly [re]installed. I've had a similar lack of reliability occur with updates across both VMs & real installations, Insider builds & not.

    As you write, Paul, there needs to be a way to avoid these sorts of issues being forced on users, Especially those less experienced technically speaking with Windows, meaning the majority I think of those using 10 Home.

    Another at least potential problem *may* hopefully be avoided by the time the update is released to the general public... Microsoft wants to [understandably] save itself some bandwidth, so it's now downloading only the needed bits rather than a complete esd. Problem is the required processing on target systems, before downloading even starts, is more lengthy & both CPU & disk intensive. That increases the odds of something going wrong, while making upgrading builds even more of a chore on the lower powered devices that are becoming more popular.

  14. Avatar

    277

    Right on, as usual, Paul.  When I saw the headline, though, my mind started down a different rabbit hole that is important to me.  I want the ability to schedule downloads, not just the install.  I am stuck with a bandwidth that is limited and expensive.  I know millions of others around the world have the same problem.  The ability to schedule in non-peak times or free download times would be extremely beneficial.  Windows 7 had this feature.  I almost went back to it, but I was one of the few that loved the new direction MS was trying with W8.  I figured the feature would probably make its way back into windows.  I never dreamed it would take 5+ years.  Using the metered connection option is very cumbersome and limiting, IMO.  (IE. updating UWP apps, especially automatically, is not an option.)

  15. Avatar

    5528

    Delay non-critical updates? Hard to know what will be delayed as security updates are now bundled into the cumulative update, thus almost every update will be critical.

  16. Avatar

    2525

    Since moving to cumulative updates there is the flipside of being able to see the upcoming fixes for next month , but get them towards the end of this month, under the "optional updates" part of Windows update.  A fair number of people will be installing via that mechanism and (maybe?) give Microsoft the testing ground of people opting-in (via the "optional" update) to test fixes early.

    That offsets this somewhat.

    I do agree though that the demarcation of home/pro is annoying.  Whilst I write medical software for hospitals, we end up in a lot of small hospitals that are really run like small businesses, particularly for their IT.  Too often they've got a new laptop or tablet to use in an area and it's just what they could get at the local store, running Windows 10 Home, etc.  Frustrating...  (we can take advantage of domain credentials for single sign-on, etc)  Admittedly it's the purchaser's mistake for going cheap, but that's because they're judging the Windows device against an iPad or Android device, which both claim to be great for work, so, in their mind, why should a Windows device for work be any more expensive?

  17. Avatar

    1872

    Sure there can be problems from installing updates but I would like to see the real failure numbers before judging. If there really are meaningful amount of problems I think they would provide a way to turn updates off. 

    The thing is that there can also be problems when not updating. People run old drivers which may introduce issues, install base would get fragmented for developers and old bugs which plague users would never get fixed.

    And we all know the security hell MS created by not updating Windows XP:s and not allowing pirated copies of Windows to be updated. When security is compromised, its not only the compromised device which suffer. Its also about your information stored on your friends email and address books and so on. And those devices tend to become pieces of botnets and start re-distributing the malware.

     

    • Avatar

      5615

      In reply to Asgard:

      "If there really are meaningful amount of problems I think they would provide a way to turn updates off."

      I think MSFT will do everything they can to avoid having to go to that extreme (they already make it harder for folks who should be able to do this to do it). No doubt the recent spate of problems, however, has spurred them into taking "corrective" action because it has been so wide-spread.

      "The thing is that there can also be problems when not updating."

      I think most folks will agree that foregoing updates completely is not the way to go; however, many of us (especially, those of us in a business environment, but there are adverse impacts on Home users, too) have been complaining that the Windows 10 update process has been broken from day one. It's heartening to see MSFT acknowledge this publicly and at least pay lip service to attempting to "fix" it. That's an encouraging first step.

  18. Avatar

    5462

    "Remember, Microsoft is admitting here that its updates are unreliable. So there is no excuse for continuing to pump potentially buggy updates at hundreds of millions of users without at least giving them the option to know what they can do about this."

    Amen

  19. Avatar

    5215

    Thank you Paul.  This is a good step.  The update process in Windows 10 is disturbing.  Besides the reliability of some recent updates, the inability to turn updates off or select when to install them manually is creating major issues for the basic consumer.  Many of my rural family members have 10-meg internet connections or less and Windows 10 completely saturates their links until the update is completed.  This is inappropriate as the updates are of course an indiscriminate size it the day of x-tb hard drives and take an hour or longer in some cases.  These folks need to be on conference calls and have other work-related obligations that need to take precedence but for some reason update traffic gets priority.  Again, this negatively affects the consumer with the least money and least care for technology.  They just expect it to work and it doesn't.  Why can't MSFT just re-enable BITs throttling!  (Deprecated for some reason in Win 7).

  20. Avatar

    5496

    Paul complains about forced upgrades.

    he complains with they fixed it.so you can pause the updates.

    it's like no matter what they do, Paul's going to complain.

     

    and insider is beta. There's going to be bugs. You should know that by now.

  21. Avatar

    8850

    Have to agree Paul. Why should customers using windows home be penalized this is wrong and its called discrimination. Pausing or delaying non essential optional updates isn't a bad idea. People just need to be given common sense choices and then they can proceed accordingly.

  22. Avatar

    9962

    Woody Leonhard at Info World is reporting that build 15002 allows setting ethernet conection to metered (finally) if true would that give us enough controll over updates?

    • Avatar

      5615

      In reply to srawlings:

      The problem with something like that is it's really just a kludge. It's not "real" control over updates; although, for some folks it might be enough. It also might alleviate the bandwidth-hog issue, but that remains to be seen.

  23. Avatar

    2371

    So, Microsoft is giving up to 35 days to figure out if there is a bug and to remove it.  They can then take however long it is needed for them to fix the bug (1 day or 2 months).  Then make the update available again with another 35 days . . .  That sounds reasonable to me.   What doesn't sound reasonable is not including Windows 10 Home on it.  It would be less coding for Microsoft to allow it for Windows 10 Home then not to.  It would be the right thing to do.  With millions of users are they really worried they will not get enough telemetry data back that would let them known there is an issue?

  24. Avatar

    1377

    Tangent: shame editors have joined buggy makers on the dung heap of history. How many paragraphs in this article beginning with the word But?

    Anyway, re Insiders, how many are running the latest builds in fairly generic VMs? FWLIW, I am, and I'd NEVER consider installing and running betas on actual hardware, so how relevant is my telemetry data?

    Actually, the last build running under VirtualBox using Guest Additions was a crash fest. I found a dozen ways to reliably crash that build in the first few days. It's the first time I can remember needing to uninstall Guest Additions. It'd be nice if 15002 fixed that. (It's still installing as I write.)

  25. Avatar

    2428

    In reply to Bart:

    Because the big updates on those are actually new OS. They are also staged rolled out and installed later or when you decide.

  26. Avatar

    5234

    Chrome OS does updates properly.  

    Windows should do updates the way that Google does: 2 copies of the OS, both Read-only.  The inactive copy gets updated in the background, and a reboot flips the inactive copy to active, and the formerly active to inactive.  Verified Boot takes care of signature checking for validity, and invalid or failed boot flips the switch back to revert back to the old version.  Settings and data are kept in separate partitions.  If both copies fail to boot, a recovery prompt downloads a fresh copy from the Internet.  THAT'S how you do OS patching.

    Also, there's no wait time in-between reboots for updating, like there is for Windows.

  27. Avatar

    5394

    More often, it's the installation process that's most buggy. Perhaps it not installing is the best way to avoid it. No need to worry about an automated process that doesn't work.

  28. Avatar

    1285

    A couple of thoughts on this.

    First, there shouldn't be a "Home" and "Professional" edition.  Professional should be the entry-level SKU.  With BYOD and features like delaying updates and bitlocker, home users need the professional edition anyway.  Just make Professional the consumer-level version.

    I applaud Microsoft for adding an advanced setting for including (or excluding) driver updates.  Automatic driver updates have been a pain for some users.  Simply turning off feature updates like this will cause too much fragmentation.  The biggest problem is the lack of confidence in Windows updates.  Maybe, Microsoft needs some kind of initiative for trustworthy or reliable computing. :)

    • Avatar

      442

      In reply to rob_segal:

      Driver updates are not a problem.  It's only negative to those trying to circumvent the system for some reason.

      • Avatar

        3272

        In reply to Narg:

        100% false. When you go spend 4k on a gaming rig only to have a driver update brick your GPU or cause another massive failure then we will see if you still think they aren't a problem. Driver updates are a huge issue for many people and multiple reasons and should not be forced on anyone.

        I have 7 PC's on my house, 3 of them have all updates completely disabled and have since Windows 10 started rolling out, they others are on forced updates. They only ones I have issues with are the windows 10 machines. I have zero issues with my 2 win 7 machines and my 8.1 gaming machine that have not been updated in 18 months other than the Geforce drivers I manually choose to install.

  29. Avatar

    5234

    "the Creators Update—which will upgrade Windows 10 to version 1607"

    Typo?  I think you mean 1704.

  30. Avatar

    2428

    They added the ability to mark a fixed connection as a metered connection in this build. That is great. This will help with people on capped accounts.

    However, this feature is still dumb. I have a metered connection. A cap between the hours of 6am to midnight. Between the hours of midnight and 6am, my connection is unmetered. There is no way for me to tell Windows this. Even our cellular providers offer packages like these in our market.

    The second issue is when it should download and when not to. I have a slow internet connection. I don't want it to download in the evening while I am gaming or surfing the web. But again, I cannot set this.

  31. Avatar

    5184

    I'd say, more than anyone, it is the Home users that need this ability to delay updates.  How many of these poor souls have issues and no idea how to fix them.

    • Avatar

      165

      In reply to jwpear:

      and they probably wouldn't understand

      what delaying the update would do for them anyway....

    • Avatar

      1584

      What if Home users are just not offered updates until, say, 21 days after availability for the other editions? In other words, a built-in delay. I have my doubts whether giving them a "choice" is really a choice at all since the majority wouldn't know what to do with the choice...even if they stumbled on it.

      So to me a rolling update schedule might make more sense for the users and for MS as well.

  32. Avatar

    5476

    "Why on earth would Home users be excluded from something like this? It’s not a premium feature. It’s a right, in my opinion. It’s like Microsoft is using this audience as guinea pigs who can test potentially buggy updates out in the wild and then suffer from problems because they’re too poor to buy a more expensive version of the OS."

    The free upgrade was all about creating a team of "guinea pigs" to get Windows 10 right before it went into the enterprise.  Used that word many times at the time, so yes that is exactly what they are doing. 

Leave a Reply