Your thoughts of the new style of Windows updates?

This is the exact reason I started looking at Linux last month. I've been a win user since win3.1. I understand issues arise. But I paid 100$ for a os not to be a tester..

3 Likes

I think M$ is trying abit to hard to cram updates down our throats.
It's really frustrating at times having these untested updates forced upon you at times, luckily i've come mostly unscraped through them sofar, other then it bricking a intel compute stick which still had warranty, a while back.
And the sheer number of updates, dear lord.

Doesn't MS have a non-stable staging area? I feel if they had that for users who need those updates RIGHT NOW and willing to risk the untested status then MS would cop allot less flak. Most Linux distros do things that way.

Yes, Windows has what is called Fast Track updates I believe and Slow ring. Basically, Fast track is most recent updates, and then the slow ring I think is the most stable.

Don't quote me on it, I could be thinking of something else, but I know it's similar. I run slow path on all of my systems except the one machine I used when I was an Insider for early Win 10.

They should just make a pacman wrapper, and gpl the windows update. At least the updates would install in a reasonable amount of time.

1 Like

windows is for masochists who enjoy getting fucked rituallistcally every first tuesday of the month. fucking weasels man how can you guys tolerate that bullshit. Boil the frog.

1 Like

Lol, I love you :P

Not pointing any fingers mind you

1 Like

[Tinfoil hatt on]

Well the roll up update packs for Windows 7 and 8.1, iĀ“m not really sure what to think of those.
Because you can either choose not to install any updates, or install all the updates including the ones with backported temeletry tracking services and what not.

So yeah..... i personally dont see any usefull improvements.

[Tinfoil hatt off]

1 Like

It's too bad no one has taken the time take the telemetry out of the rollups. But as Grassyloki said, it is driving Linux adoption. It still won't be enough people though. Linux has to pretty much be idiotproof to rival the market share Windows has.

This is kind of exactly what I was thinking. We're either stuck with no updates, or hoping that they aren't pulling any more bollocks.

I think it's more than idiot proofing, at least for many here, it's full game adoption. Sure we could dual boot, but it would be a lot nicer if we could just boot into one OS and play any game we like. Then there's anyone who uses certain programs for work, could always have a work PC separate, or learn a linux equivalent if possible, but I'd say that's easier said than done. There's also just a general understanding of where everything is, it's going back to square one instead of knowing it like the back of your hand. It's like the person who gets the new car, and decides they hate it because it's not their old car instead of trying to just get used to it and figure things out.

One thing that I have always fucking complain about if you update and shutdown why the fuck does the computer need to configure itself for x amount of time when you turn it back on again?

I thought the entire Goddamn point of updating before you shut down automatically was to get all that crap out of the way in a time when it's not going to waste the user's time

1 Like

KuramaKitsue,

It's because some of the stuff being updated, can only be updated or changed before windows acutally starts up. Most the time in Windows, if you have a program running, you can't alter it. So, windows has to literally start back up and install stuff before important Windows components start back up.

In which case Windows should turn itself back on instead of shutting off completely do what it needs to do and then shut off again to be ready for the user when it is next needed

Because people are picky and tend to wait to see the machine turn off. If it did that, people would get pissy about shutdown taking too long. It's a compromise. They trade a little bit of startup time for the ease of updates for the user and save time on shutdown. Windows USED to do all update stuff on shutdown, and it took WAY too long and people complained. They got rid of it in the XP days. Most people nowadays when they do updates just restart, so the whole process is done in one go anyway. And only takes a few minutes longer than the old way.

The only thing I disagree with is your metaphor. I think it's more like learning Portuguese when you already know Spanish, or learning another Chinese dialect when you already know Mandarin or Cantonese. I was speaking about mainstream adoption though, regarding idiotproofing, not just people that game or do business on their computers. Windows can still be broke by operator error, so even it is not idiotproof. The closest thing we have to idiotproofing is smartphones. (OEMs, don't you dare force me to jailbreak my own computer!)

Yeah, the metaphor wasn't perfect, I realized that after and couldn't think of another. As well that you were speaking of the mainstream. Though I do think getting to the rest of the tech community is a first step, as we often influence the others in our lives to some extent.

Do you not consider your smartphone a computer? Many people use them like they are.

With regards to Windows updates taking a long time to install and all the restarting they need, Microsoft are undoubtedly maintaining a huge amount of legacy code, mostly due to how long Windows has been necessary for most businesses.

In some ways I feel bad for Microsoft because they are effectively trapped in the past because of how reliant people have become on their old technology, both for businesses and home use.

Then again, they didn't have to go all evil on us with Windows 10 telemetry and forceful update tactics on servers (15 minute warning banner, I'm looking at you).

It is but at the same time it isn't. "Computer" in the context I used means a desktop or laptop computer.