Yes, I believe most here would acknowledge the flaw. But we all still ridicule the OP for knowing about it and still trying to flame MS for his failure to save his work. That will never change no matter how much you try to convince us otherwise. Yes, you can be really narrow and say MS has a flaw, but that's besides the point. We don't live in a vacuum where you can just cling to that one thing. While that is true, it is a flaw, the OP tried to blame the flaw when his own neglect caused him to lose work.
Another way to look at what you just said:
If there is a salmonella outbreak for Jiffy brand peanut butter all over the news, and you see several news stories about deaths because of it, would you still continue to make sandwiches with Jiffy peanut butter that you you purchased before you heard about the outbreak?
Yes, he ended up in the hospital, I understand that. I've been in the hospital too, and have worked remotely while not being able to get out of bed due to life threatening illness as well. So? You claimed that he was unable to save his work because of some freak accident. I'm saying that has nothing to do with the mistake he made.
Let's assume he had unsaved work when his accident took place. This means he left his computer with unsaved work. That's his bad.
Let's assume the accident happened while he was at his computer. He still remoted into his computer several times, in between intermittent bouts of consciousness, and still failed to save his work. That's still his bad.
Let's assume the saved work is all stuff he started while he was in the hospital, remoting in, and he didn't save it before the auto-restart. That's STILL his bad.
I haven't claimed to know everything though, unlike the OP who says he knows more than everyone.
did his fingers break and prevent him front hitting CTRL + S? Fever made him forget how to save? Flu made him pass out in front of his desk?
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.
Your ranting against Microsoft aside, you still walked away from the PC with work unsaved.
If your hard drive had died, you'd be yelling at Western Digital.
If the power had failed, you'd be yelling at the power company.
If your video driver caused your system to blue screen, you'd be yelling at Nvidia.
Saving doesn't take long.
A FLAW is still a FLAW and he still has the RIGHT to complain about it and blame the one responsible for the FLAW for the FLAW existing. You just can't separate blaming MS for the FLAW from blaming himself for knowing about it and still being stung. Your ridicule is obviously not enough to discourage him from speaking the truth.
No, I think my MCITP and VCP certifications as well as some of the jobs I've done would be enough for me to consider myself an IT expert. I haven't claimed to know everything though, unlike the OP who says he knows more than everyone.
You're telling me that Windows DOESN'T eventually restart if you decline it? I guess I'll just need to show you.
Seriously, I know more about this than ANY of you.
How is it a flaw if it achieved the desired goal?
He wanted the updates to be installed automatically.
Update cannot be installed without a reboot.
Perhaps you can see where this is going...
If the computer does not restart, the update is not installed. But, the OP wanted it to install. So you know what? The computer restarted, and the update was installed.
You are being sarcastic, but the answer is: YES. He ended up being suddenly overcome and admitted to the hospital.
/me eagerly awaits Chrome OS.
SOME updates ARE installed without a required reboot. Others require a reboot.
I simply want a notice to let me know if I need to reboot. I want it to show me a bubble pop-up once (not some keyboard-focus-stealing dialog), then stay quietly in the system tray until I reboot myself. That's it!
I know that Windows doesn't allow me to have what I WANT. I have no choice but to tweak the registry / group policy and still not get *quite* the experience I want.
Users shouldn't have to do that.
I have a valid complaint that the behavior has changed over the years and the reasoning behind it is wrong. It was extremely unfortunate that I allowed this to burn me, even though I knew about it, but it happened. I'm still bitching about the change.
The computer is a tool. You use it to accomplish a task. If I'm driving to the emergency room, I don't want my car to override my will and go to the dealer for an important adjustment.
I don't think you understand. He remoted in with the intention of saving and salvaging it before something like that happened but could not stay conscious long enough to do so. He was suddenly overcome and, after that, made attempts but was unable to do anything but trust that MS would not restart his PC, which was a risk he chose to take long ago and hoped would not come to this. He did not forfeit his right to complain about MS' error.
There is still no reason to believe he would have saved his work but his sickness prevented him from doing it. The only way I we could retract the ridicule placed on him in this backfired thread is if his illness caused him to pass out in the middle working, AT HIS COMPUTER, and he went straight from working at the computer to the hospital. If that is the case, and it could be even though he hasn't said so, then I wouldn't have a problem taking back all I said here. I don't care, i'm not one of the ones frothing at the mouth with anger.
If he had significant work, he should have saved it. Programs can crash, windows can crash, computers can crash, reboots happen, power outages, etc. So even if I'm still working, I save my shit. Even my browsers all use Session Manager, so my tabs get restored if a machine crashes.
The computer should NEVER EVER restart with open unsaved work unless there's a power failure.
To those saying that this was MS' response to media scrutiny:
Bullshit. What direct threat does a virus pose? Data loss and theft. What does forcing restarts inevitably cause? Data loss. Not forcing a restart does not cause hundreds of thousands of zombie machines to remain on the Internet because the restart WILL inevitably happen.
Don't get pissed off at Microsoft just because you don't know how to configure a computer.
This got me thinking: OP, how do you know that it restarted for updates versus rebooting due to a power surge, or some other non-MS explanation?
MotionMan
That is wrong.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/mu/archive/2008/10/02/windows-update-and-automatic-reboots.aspx
Of course, all of the ATOT know-it-all's knew this (even the ones that said this doesn't happen over and over and over...).
Clearly Microsoft couldn't find the space in the Windows Update settings page for this key piece of information, so they rely on the world at large to go to Technet to learn the behavior of Windows Update.
Are you fucking DENSE?
I don't think you're talking about your work computer. Do you think that gpedit or registry settings don't work on home computers too? You aren't making any sense.
If you KNOW about the tweak WHY DON'T YOU USE IT?
You still seem to think I'm talking about my work computer. I'm not. I'm talking about my home computer. My end-of-the-day is when I can't keep my eyes open any more and I have to roll over to the bed. It could be 0100, 0200, 0300...... WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY BEFORE CLICKING INSTALL and then LOCKING YOUR SYSTEM.
No, you should get to snooze for 24 hours no more than 3 times and on the last day you should get a warning that "the computer will reboot to finish installation of updates and doesn't give a fuck about your notepad bullshit." there's too many inept fuckers out there who don't understand network security or don't give a shit and would snooze on the reboot forever if they could choose.
Why are you waiting for Chrome? There's numerous Linux distros to choose from, and they can all be setup the way you like. Chrome will certainly do things you don't like also, and it's primary use is as a "cloud" O/S. Hardly the multipurpose workhorse Windows or mainstream Linux is.