[grrr]

[CZroe]

Anyone who's used Windows for any amount of time knows to save early, and save often. It's gotten very stable over the last bunch of years, but crashes used to be common.

Without knowing nothin' about nothin', it can be inferred that something bad will happen once the time has lapsed in that dropdown box. What happens after 4 hours? You don't know? Well, what's likely to happen? What's likely to happen is your machine will restart since the time ran out. Without even knowing if that's correct, logic would lead to that conclusion.

How do we fix this? We save our work as has been drilled into most of our heads over the last 30 years or so, and we set Windows Update to notify, but not install updates. Problem solved.

So I guess MS thought they bought themselves some wiggle-room for deliberately causing some of those same frustrations? It's still inexcusable. If it were a random crash, I'm sure the OP would have just accepted it, but it wasn't, he knows it, and he is justifiably complaining that the default behavior should never have changed to the frustratingly inferior state it is in to the old "Automatically install updates" option (which DIDN'T restart without user input). He had it like he wanted it and unfortunate, but predictably likely circumstances, caused him to be unable to postpone it. The "predictability" of it is NOT something which damns the user's intelligence as many suggest because, obviously, MS intended it to be the preferred and most appropriate option for the majority of users. It is MS who should have predicted that this WILL happen and will happen often enough to catch many people some of the time, even if it doesn't happen often and to everyone. That should have factored into their decision. When weighing the "cost vs. benefit" of forced restarts vs prompted restarts (auto installation in both scenarios), it's EASY to see that it will cause data loss far more often than the condition the patch is meant to correct, especially when you figure that the PC would be restarted eventually anyway (likely, as soon as the user returns and finishes). It is a complete failure of their interface designer's ability to place himself in the real world in a normal user's situation and to consider THEIR DATA more important than prompt restarting after some random update. YES, there is a chance that they could lose everything because of malicious activity and their system being unpatched when it otherwise would have been, but the chances on such a small time scale are so ridiculously minute as to not even be remotely considerable. Statisticians know this. Everyone should.

 

[CZroe]

Here exactly is the difference.

Home Premium (or whatever garbage) is not a mission critical OS. They are not part of a domain and business users don't use it.

Thus the user is treated as if they were just along for the ride and they aren't given any option. If you want this fine-grained control over your OS - use Professional and gpedit.msc or edit the registry.

A home user is not afforded the same luxury as a business user.

Comma.

So home users deserve to have their unsaved shit closed and lost. Fuck 'em. /sarcasm

 

[bobdole369]

So home users deserve to have their unsaved shit closed and lost. Fuck 'em. /sarcasm

Yes. No sarcasm.

 

[Lifted]

Yes he said that. He also said that he knew more about this than anyone here. He also said he was an elitist prick basically.

Care to quote it for me?

So do you see why he's getting flack now?

No, I don't. Nobody knows everything.

I guess I could be mistaken. Perhaps you actually do know everything, or at least think you do.

 

[Ms. DICKINSON]

User errors, FAILED!

 

[Numenorean]

Care to quote it for me?

No, care to actually read a thread before you post in it and make yourself look foolish?

 

[Lifted]

No, care to actually read a thread before you post in it and make yourself look foolish?

That's JUST what I thought.

 

[CZroe]

I agree with you, that it's stupid of MS to design the updates to automatically restart, but that's not really the issue with the OP. He claims to be knowledgable in this type of thing, so he should have been aware that restarts would take place automatically. Unless he just installed Win7, in which case lesson learned – though still, tough luck – and it's still his fault because no matter what he should have saved his work.

Sort of, except you think that "knowledgeable" = "does not want." The setting is the closest approximation to what he does want but it has one little problem that COULD happen under rare, but common enough, circumstances which he could only HOPE would not affect him ("what if I'm incapacitated and can't return to delay or prepare for the automatic restart?"). MS must expect EVERY user to weigh this possibility before selecting that option and must expect the majority to want it anyway for them to select it as default. Either that or they don't care about user data or they didn't think it through. Considering that they once DID think it through and suddenly changed at the same time as many other clueless changes, I assume that latter and that they were just oblivious to why things were done a certain way in the first place.

 

[mb]

Care to quote it for me?



No, I don't. Nobody knows everything.

I guess I could be mistaken. Perhaps you actually do know everything, or at least think you do.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31300761&postcount=43

You have NO fucking clue how intimately familiar I am with this and the differences between so many versions of Windows...it's what I DO.

I'm offended you'd even suggest I'm an "OK, OK, OK, OK" person. How many times do I have to say that I want updates installed automatically? I don't just want notifications.

I'm the elitist who never runs antivirus software since Win95A...but *gasp* never gets viruses! Part of the reason is because I know what the fuck I'm clicking and what's trustworthy. It's extra important for me to keep up-to-date so I don't have a browser vulnerability exploited or some such thing. Though I wouldn't recommend my "method" to others, I would know immediately if something is running that shouldn't be.

 

[Lifted]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31300761&postcount=43

"I'm an IT expert" not found.

Next?

 

[CZroe]

So have you been aware of the change for a few years? If so you're just making an even worse case for yourself. I could understand your frustration if they changed it last week. Maybe last month. But a few years ago? Come on.

You are assuming that being aware of the POSSIBILITY means that you should never select that option. This is silly. If that's the case, the existence of the option RELIES on uninformed users (who WANTS to lose work/data?) and has NO REASON TO EXIST beyond causing "Surprise! We did something you didn't want!" situations.

 

[Numenorean]

That's JUST what I thought.

So you admit that you don't want to actually read and want to just reply without all the information?

You come at this thinking that he didn't say he was an IT expert, and assume that I'm wrong when I inform you that yes he did say that. But you can't be bothered to look yourself, because you're right no matter what.

Yes, it's just what you thought.

 

[mb]

"I'm an IT expert" not found.

Next?

Seriously? Wow, are you really expecting that exact quote from him?
Read the first line of the post I quoted.

How can one be "intimately familiar" and say it's what they do, and be so clueless about the fact that some updates need a reboot to install, and not know that wanting all updates to always automatically install might result in an automatic reboot?

Argh edit 100 I cannot type anymore..

 

[CZroe]

haha wow the OP is one of those people you meet in life who can just never EVER admit when they are wrong. the ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD is about people telling him how to fix his "problem" and he still will not listen to anyone and would rather continue to sound like a fucking moron.

thank you ATOT for the entertainment this afternoon!

You can't "fix" something that has already happened. The problem is that the behavior ensures that it WILL happen eventually, even with full knowledge that it is possible (he couldn't control being incapacitated and sent to the hospital). Assuming that you want automatic installation, which is necessary to get some users to ever install updates, and are thus OK with auto-restart and losing data, is stupid. A restart will happen eventually no matter how irresponsible the user is. There is no good reason to force one on a consumer machine.

 

[lxskllr]

So I guess MS thought they bought themselves some wiggle-room for deliberately causeing some of those same frustrations? ... Lots O'Stuff...

Regardless of how MS set things up, you can't make assumptions. When you make assumptions with anything, there's a good chance you'll end up fucked. NEVER assume software that worked one way in the last version will work the same way in the present version. Today is a new day, and tomorrow will be different too.

I already laid out the perfectly logical thought process that should be followed regrading updates. There should have been questions with the way Windows Update is setup since it's different than XP. If laziness prevented verification, than it's nobody's fault but the operator's.

 

[CZroe]

Again, there are numerous ways around this. Even if it does automatically reboot (say, at midnight), there are other options. As another poster said, I would NEVER allow updates to be automatically installed on my PC without having to approve them first. That is not a good idea.

So why does MS think it's a good idea AND important enough to risk user data without informing the user? They once thought is was important enough to install but not force a restart in deference to a user's data, so why did they change suddenly and without notice?

 

[Numenorean]

"I'm an IT expert" not found.

Next?

See the "intimately familiar part.

If that doesn't work:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31300781&postcount=46

There...he says he knows more than anyone here about this. Since I would consider myself an IT expert and I know there are other IT experts here (such as IndyColts Fan) then one must assume that he says he knows EVEN MORE than we do.

If that is truly the case, then he should be able to have this fixed easily.

 

[mb]

You are assuming that being aware of the POSSIBILITY means that you should never select that option. This is silly. If that's the case, the existence of the option RELIES on uninformed users (who WANTS to lose work/data?) and has NO REASON TO EXIST beyond causing "Surprise! We did something you didn't want!" situations.

If he was aware that the computer can automatically reboot to install updates, and he doesn't want it to automatically reboot - then YES, he should not select that option.

If you know selecting an option can cause undesired consequences then you don't select that option! You find another solution, not pick the poor option and bitch about it later.

 

[Lifted]

See the "intimately familiar part.

That made you rage? Get over yourself.

There...he says he knows more than anyone here about this. Since I would consider myself an IT expert and I know there are other IT experts here (such as IndyColts Fan) then one must assume that he says he knows EVEN MORE than we do.

If that is truly the case, then he should be able to have this fixed easily.

If you thought Windows wouldn't automatically restart, which is what he was referring to, and what IndyColtsFan said, then he was right, he does know more. Everyone who said Windows won't automatically restart was wrong. Hell, in the OP he even states that MS changed this behavior years ago, yet "IT experts" here said it doesn't even happen! I'd say that shows he knows more than you and your "IT experts" about this.

 

[Numenorean]

That made you rage? Get over yourself.



If you thought Windows wouldn't automatically restart, which is what he was referring to, and what IndyColtsFan said, then he was right, he does know more. Everyone who said Windows won't automatically restart was wrong. Hell, in the OP he even states that MS changed this behavior years ago, yet "IT experts" here said it doesn't even happen! I'd say that shows he knows more that you and your "IT experts" about this.

I never said it wouldn't if it was set wrong. I was saying it needs to be set correctly to prevent.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So why does MS think it's a good idea AND important enough to risk user data without informing the user? They once thought is was important enough to install but not force a restart in deference to a user's data, so why did they change suddenly and without notice?

Do you recall when Microsoft was getting lambasted in the media on an almost daily basis for security holes? When John Doe and Jane Doe had infected, exploited PCs connected directly to the internet and spreading worms, viruses (virii? ), etc? When tens of thousands (if not more) of zombie Microsoft-based PCs were on the internet?

I do remember those days very well, and I used to review my firewall logs in utter astonishment at the number of people who were allegedly "savvy" who were infected. By "savvy," I mean they thought they were IT pros judging from the fact that they had Windows 2000 Servers on the internet, but they weren't savvy because an alarming portion of them left the admin password blank, but I digress....

Anyway, people in the media were screaming about a couple of issues:

1. Too many security issues
2. Too hard to find/download the patches

Their complaints were 100% valid. "Make it easier!" "Make it more secure!" So Microsoft chose to make the "Recommended Settings" ones which would automatically download and install the patches at 3 AM IIRC. A reboot would follow. Microsoft chose what, in their view, were "safe" settings. A patched PC isn't patched in many cases until it is rebooted since many patches won't be completely installed until a reboot happens. I suspect there were some liability concerns on their part as well, which is why they made their "recommended" settings the settings which would ensure that the system got patched.

Did they make the right decision? I'm not sure. I am sure that they aren't very clear with respect to what their "Recommended Settings" are at first glance, however, and I think that is where the problem lies. I've not argued this point. But many of us in this thread work in enterprises where security patches are important enough that we DO force reboots to ensure compliance with our standards. At least in my case, we've traditionally bent over backwards to communicate, recommunicate, etc. prior to the patches being pushed. Maybe MS should communicate better, but I've honestly not heard many people complain about this particular issue.

 

[CZroe]

So you say no, but then you agree with me and basically say the same thing I did..

Some updates aren't installed until the computer is rebooted. That's the same as saying, as you put it, they haven't finished installing until the machine is rebooted.
The updates the OP wanted automatically installed required a reboot. So, as the OP gave permission to have them automatically installed, the machine was also automatically rebooted so they could be installed. If it did not reboot, they were not installed. He wanted them installed, and they were.

Completely wrong. Some updates can't be finished installing without a restart. Which is, of course, "duh." But don't get hung up on that. Giving permission to start the installation and finish when the user restarts is not the same as giving permission to install and restart if needed and is not the same as only starting the install when manually instructed to do so. The difference is EXACTLY what is being argued against because, at one time, MS did NOT force a restart for automatic updates and relied on the user to approve a restart, which they inevitably did even if they totally ignored the prompts to do so. A typical user eventually restarting is inevitable. A typical user manually launching the updates is not. That is why automatic is still a good idea even without forcing a restart. When I see that updates are available and I have to wait for them to download and install before I can shut down and go some place, I am annoyed that I couldn't just enable automatic updates for fear of losing unsaved information. For it to be the default option, it should be as I want it to be for ANY typical user who doesn't want to scrutinize every update.

Edit: The difference is that in one case the user can no longer opt out of the update though they can take their time restarting. In the other, they have both the update and the restart forced on them.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If you thought Windows wouldn't automatically restart, which is what he was referring to, and what IndyColtsFan said, then he was right, he does know more. Everyone who said Windows won't automatically restart was wrong. Hell, in the OP he even states that MS changed this behavior years ago, yet "IT experts" here said it doesn't even happen! I'd say that shows he knows more than you and your "IT experts" about this.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I will repeat it again since it obviously has NOT gotten through your thick skull. I NEVER said it would not automatically restart with his current settings.

 

[CZroe]

It's been this way for a long time now. The OP claimed to be an IT expert, but for some reason also claims he couldn't figure this out.

I never said that for an average, uninformed user that this couldn't be a surprise.

For someone who is an IT expert as the OP claimed, there should be no excuses for not knowing about this and how to fix it so it does what you want. That is what is going on here, not what you are trying to twist it into.

That's what you THINK is going on here. He already said that he want's automatic updates and chose to take the risk for STATED REASONS because it was the only option presented that lined up with the majority of the behaviors he DID want. So, he knew what could happen, resolved to simply try to be there when the need arrived, encountered a situation where he couldn't, thus, it happened anyway. So what? It doesn't mean he forfeits his right to complain about MS' stupid design changes.

 

[Lifted]

I never said it wouldn't if it was set wrong. I was saying it needs to be set correctly to prevent.

So the fact that you were able to Google a registry key makes you an IT expert and the OP an idiot?