Don't care. Unless his accident happened while he was at his computer typing his tasks, he has no excuse for not saving his work. I'm guessing that's not the case, because he claimed in another reply that he remoted in to do some work in between bouts of intermittent consciousness. So it's not like his work was there and a freak accident took him away from the computer before he could save his work.
All the other stuff you said, I've already said several times that I agree MS's approach to auto-restart in Win7/Vista is weak. The point i'm making is yes, it's weak, but the OP knew of it ahead of time, and he still didn't save his shit. His rage at MS is misplaced, because he's blaming them for his own mistake.
Put another way: He knew their flaw, yet he didn't change his behavior to adjust for their flaw, and then turns around and tries to blame his lost work on their flaw anyways?
So only people who don't know why they lost their work have the right to complain? Listen to yourself! They couldn't formulate a meaningful complaint if they don't even know why they lost their data and, yet, you are either implying that only they should have that setting enabled or that those others who do know why were stupid for agreeing to use it as designed. The setting is not appropriate for ANYONE. To enable it and change your behavior to suit, like the OP intended to do, requires knowledge of the behavior and, obviously, isn't foolproof. He intended to simply save and postpone when possible, probably hibernating when not in use, so that he could have the updates downloaded and installed automatically like he wanted without forced reboots, and circumstances converged in a way where he ultimately couldn't maintain that usage scenario. Those circumstances were bound to happen eventually to nearly every user who WANTS automatic installation regardless of them wanting automatic reboots, especially if they didn't know.
No, I do not think that knowledgable = "does not want". He knew the implications of choosing automatic updates. He knew this meant that his computer would restart. Any logical person who knows this and still chooses this option basically takes responsibility for losing any work that comes as a result of an auto-restart + failure to save work.
The irony is that a beginner user is justified in making the OP's mistake. I have lost work too from this; when i first installed Win7 and did not expect Windows to ever restart without confirming w/ me. But the OP, who claimed to know more than all of us about Windows, has known about this bug now, but still didn't do anything to avoid losing his work.
Also, the OP did in fact claim in one of his replies: "I know more than ALL of you here" (about Windows/IT, or "different versions of windows"). If it's not here now, he must have edited his post. Several people saw it, and that's what they are referring to when they say the OP claims to be an IT expert. I don't know if anyone quoted it, but we aren't pulling it out of our ass.
If I leave my computer running, if all things perform as they should, I EXPECT it to still be running. That isn't to say that I expect all things to perform as they should, but when something doesn't, I assign blame where appropriate. If a power outage happens, I blame the power outage. If the OS crashed, I blame the OS instability. If a cosmic ray flipped a bit and caused a parity error, I blame the cosmic ray. If an application with a memory leak ate up all my system resources until the OS crashed, I blame the application. If the OS decided it wanted to reboot without my permission,
I BLAME THE OS. Just because other bad things CAN happen doesn't excuse them for MAKING something bad happen. Remember when MS used to be apologetic about things like the early Win95 error that would cause it to blue screen after just being on a set amount of time? Or when they would promise that the next iteration of Win9x would have fewer random reboots, blue screens, crashes, program faults, etc? When did it become OK the backpedal and do the opposite of what they did all those years? When did it become OK to blame the user for MS' bad decisions and faults just because the user knew about them and could, under certain circumstances, prevent it? I guess a user knowing about the Win95 XX:XX uptime blue screen could make sure to save just the same, but that doesn't make it OK for MS to have an issue like that and it doesn't make it the user's fault when something inevitably happens and they are unable to save as they normally would.
Sigh.. wtf are you even trying to argue? When you select to automatically install updates you are NOT giving it permission to start the installation and then finish only when the user restarts.
You *ARE* giving it full permission to install the update. If a reboot is required, it will happen whether you want it or not. Plain and simple.
If a reboot is required for an update, it is not installed until the machine is rebooted.
I don't care if 5 years ago that's not the way it was. This isn't 5 years ago. The OP knows that the computer can automatically reboot for updates and yet did nothing to change the behavior, and is now complaining that it happened.
You aren't saying anything I don't already know.
It's what I've been saying. The computer will reboot. The OP claims he is intimately familiar with Windows and knows more than everyone here. He should know it will happen. And it did happen, and OP bitched about it.
And my 2 cents is that automatic updates with a forced reboot are a good thing. The average user is a fucking tard and will never let updates install, leaving them vulnerable.The above average user should know how to change the settings to fit their needs.
*facepalm*
NOT when they were automatically installed and it is simply waiting on a restart to finish. There is no excuse for this behavior being mutually inclusive with automatic installation. Stop trying to make one. If you are concerned about continued vulnerability or threat to others, try putting the system in Sleep or Hibernate first if they don't respond to a prompt to restart, I don't care, as long as you do NOT force a restart without explicit permission beforehand. If a system is powered off in Hibernation, guess what? It's not vulnerable nor is it spreading malicious software. It's powered off. Completely. If it remains vulnerable upon restoration, then it can nag the user to restart and, worst case scenario, they ignore it until they feel like restarting, which WILL eventually happen (unlike setting it to prompt for installation), and, yes, they MAY be vulnerable during that time. They were vulnerable a lot longer before it and it's still a FORCED installation which is a million times better than what MS was criticised for. Unlike your bolded statement above, it WILL happen eventually no matter how negligent the user is unless their system has 100% uptime and NEVER EVER needs a reboot and works so well that they NEVER EVER reboot it themselves. You know that that's a laughable fantasy with such a remote likelihood that it isn't even worth mentioning.
Can we stop saying "SOME updates"??? WE ALL KNOW THAT. I'm talking about the updates that made your computer reboot.
You wanted all updates to be installed automatically. Those updates needed a reboot to be installed. The computer rebooted because that's the way YOU set it up to do. And you knew all along that it could happen. And then you bitched about it anyway.
If you want different options send an email to MS.
If you want to relate what happened to your computer to your car, this is more like it:
It's your job to know about cars. You know more about cars than anyone here. You set up your car to override your will and go to the dealer for an important adjustment at any time needed. 5 years ago it used to just beep at you endlessly, but now it can take control. You are aware of these changes and do nothing about it. Then one day you were on your way to the emergency room, and it overrode your will and went to the dealership. Then you went on a forum and bitched about it.
No, you've got it wrong.
If you want to relate what happened to your computer to your car, this is more like it:
It's your job to know about the fancy new-fangled future cars that can drive themselves. You know more about said cars than anyone here. You set up your car to make necessary adjustments automatically. Why wouldn't you? They are necessary. Some of those adjustments require your car to go to the dealer for an important adjustment. You don't want it to override your will to go to the dealer when you need it for something else (it's intended purpose: transportation), but you do want it to go to the dealer when you aren't using it and won't be. Of course, only you can make that call. 5 years ago it used to do exactly that with exactly the same setting, but now it can take control whether you need it for something else or not and it does not ask your permission nor is it optional if you opt in to automatic adjustments. It doesn't even make sense that it would override you and force you to return to the dealer because that would be dangerous and contrary to the very purpose of the car. But, knowing as much as you do about these cars, you know that this flaw exists and how to minimize the chances of it happening. You do modify your driving behavior by attempting to finish all of your trips every day and familiarize yourself with the "delay" button on the dashboard. Then one day you had a catastrophic injury and barely managed to get in your car and tell it to take you to the emergency room. You were on your way to the emergency room and you lost consciousness due to blood loss, which is something that these fancy future cars are supposed to help with by completing the journey to your intended destination automatically. Unfortunately, it overrode your will and went to the dealership for an adjustment that could have easily waited until you were safe at the emergency room. You or, if you were unlucky, your surviving family then rightfully bitched about it.
The car manufacturer in the above scenario should be sued if there was no way to enable automatic adjustments without setting yourself up for such a dangerous, and inevitable, scenario.
Please enlighten us on exactly why Microsoft did it.
Because they are too lazy to look at the solution and consider a proper solution. It's why a file copy dialog still steals focus from a typing user and cancels itself after nearly two decades. It's why they never fixed system tray behavior when you close a system tray item. It's why we now have a bastardized method of managing multiple documents in one program that keeps binging UNWANTED documents to the front just because you opened and closed an unrelated one (remember MDI forms? Win3.1 Program Manager was practically built around it. USE THOSE! They weren't confusing at all and did the EXACT SAME THING).
Wow! Apple's amazing. For years I've been thinking it would be a great idea if you could put your computer sleep, but still remove power, and be able to pick up where you left off. And AUTOSAVE!! Those guys are geniuses. Again, Apple innovates the computer field. We're lucky to have them building products for us.
Application-level hibernate and resume functionality agnostic of dependency updates as long as they remain compatible with the saved program state makes perfect sense. This is an idea that I have dreamed about for an ideal OS. And this was LONG before I saw it in iOS4.
What notice is that? I am not familiar with it. Can you link to a pic of one?
Thanks.
MotionMan
I did mention it earlier in the thread. Consider it independent confirmation.
I can't believe you keep bringing up the fact that you were MEDICALLY INCAPACITATED. Unless you died, I'm pretty sure you could have called someone and told them to save your shit, you know, just in case you were MEDICALLY INCAPACITATED for a week.
You have two options, and you know it. Set the computer to let you know when you have updates to install and do it at your convenience. Or, set it to automatically update and risk the restart if you're not there. What you want to do is essentially the same as not patching the machine. If you don't restart, what good did installing the updates in the first place do?
Finally, if you're at the computer and as awesome at multitasking as you say you are, just start the install, go back to work, save your shit when it wants to restart, restart, go about your business. Christ.
It did PLENTY of good.
A) It automatically downloaded it.
B) It completely installed updates that don't require a restart.
C) It started the installation without needing you to notice and only then begin downloading, installing, etc (less vulnerable time than setting it to manual-only)
D) It is much better than "not patching" because you can't completely opt-out and it WILL happen on the next restart no matter what.
"Christ" indeed.
Oh, and stop putting two spaces after a period. It is just wrong. Trust me. Yes, people do it. Yes, some people were TAUGHT to do it. Yes, some people still TEACH other people to do it, but it absolutely is wrong unless you are typing with a mono-spaced font such as an old typewriter. Period.
Well, do whatever you're got to do I guess. You're blowing up over an issue that doesn't affect 99% of Windows Users. Good luck with that.
You know that there are things you could do that would mitigate any data loss you might see. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it. Get back to work. You're wasting time posting when you could be getting some shit done!
Are you seriously saying that? It is the default behavior. To say that it doesn't affect a LARGE percentage of users is profoundly ignorant.