Who is responsible for the automatic update feature of windows?

[Mc. Lovin']

As in the title, who is responsible for the automatic update feature? Why did they think restarting the computer without the user OKing it first (even when they are in a full screen programme!) was a good idea?

I want to know the name of the person so that I can memorise it and curse them with my dying words :smallfurious:

[Holocron Coder]

Having just been forcefully pulled mid-game from a League of Legends match, I concur :smallmad:

[KillianHawkeye]

Perhaps there is something in the settings which you can tell it not to do that? There certainly was in older versions.

[Whiffet]

Perhaps there is something in the settings which you can tell it not to do that? There certainly was in older versions.

Yeah, there is. But the default is automatic, which can lead to very annoying occurrences if you didn't realize it until it was too late.

I want to say, "Sure, I understand why you did that. People like my mom would never update otherwise, even if it was really important." On the other hand, that doesn't give back the homework I lost the first time everything decided to close, now does it? :smallmad:

[KillianHawkeye]

I want to say, "Sure, I understand why you did that. People like my mom would never update otherwise, even if it was really important." On the other hand, that doesn't give back the homework I lost the first time everything decided to close, now does it? :smallmad:

"Save early, save often." Everybody has to learn that lesson the hard way at some point. Now you won't make that mistake again! (Seriously, your power could theoretically go out at any time, so why take the chance?)

[Flickerdart]

Windows Update has never forced a reboot on me in the default settings. An always-on-top prompt comes up that starts counting down as soon as it's the active window and you can delay reboot indefinitely if you want.

[factotum]

Windows Update has never forced a reboot on me in the default settings. An always-on-top prompt comes up that starts counting down as soon as it's the active window and you can delay reboot indefinitely if you want.

I think if you leave the machine running overnight it will automatically apply the updates without your intervention at 3am, though--I've known people who have lost work due to that. (No, I don't know why they left the computer on without saving their stuff to go to bed either...).

[Runestar]

Heh, try being in a classroom with 1-to-1 computing (each pupil has their own laptop), and some kid telling you in the middle of your lesson that he can't follow your instructions because his laptop just rebooted and is in the middle of installing some random update...:smallsigh:

[Mc. Lovin']

Having just been forcefully pulled mid-game from a League of Legends match, I concur :smallmad:

You know what, that's the exact thing that got me. I was nidalee on aram ...


I want to say, "Sure, I understand why you did that. People like my mom would never update otherwise, even if it was really important." On the other hand, that doesn't give back the homework I lost the first time everything decided to close, now does it? :smallmad:

I want to call the guy and tell him he's an idiot and hang up on him. Just for the satisfaction. And he would go "Oh jeeze, maybe auto update is a stupid feature, I'll make sure to do something about it next time we patch windows!". And then world hunger would be ended, and there would never be another war again.


"Save early, save often." Everybody has to learn that lesson the hard way at some point. Now you won't make that mistake again! (Seriously, your power could theoretically go out at any time, so why take the chance?)

If I was stupid enough to not save my work enough when a power outage came about then that was my own fault, I should have prepared for that. But this guy's malicious programming isn't acceptable. I should not have to prepare against my own computer turning against me! I understand we have to prepare for freezes or crashes, but those are Microsoft's fault. And if my computer freezes or crashes and causes me to lose work, I would be on the phone telling the coders they should have done a better job. We shouldn't have to accept mediocrity or failure like this. They should design a better computer


Windows Update has never forced a reboot on me in the default settings. An always-on-top prompt comes up that starts counting down as soon as it's the active window and you can delay reboot indefinitely if you want.

If this pops up while you are in a full screen programme you can't see it, and it restarts anyway assuming you have (once the countdown has been reached)

[Whiffet]

I think if you leave the machine running overnight it will automatically apply the updates without your intervention at 3am, though--I've known people who have lost work due to that. (No, I don't know why they left the computer on without saving their stuff to go to bed either...).

Yeah, that's when it happened for me, at 3 AM. I don't know about those other people, but I wasn't in bed at all. I was trying to get it done that night (er, morning, I guess). Oddly enough, I don't think it was due the next day, so I'm not sure what I was thinking... :smallconfused:

[KillianHawkeye]

I should not have to prepare against my own computer turning against me!

That's just the attitude that'll cause you to let your guard down when the machines begin their inevitable uprising! We'll see how well you complain when your head is in a pile of skulls or your body gets put into a gigantic battery charger!



But in all seriousness, you are a human being. Your computer is a fancy box with flashing lights. You are unquestionably THE boss in this situation. Your computer cannot do anything that you do not allow it to do if you have any idea what you're doing.

[Mc. Lovin']

But in all seriousness, you are a human being. Your computer is a fancy box with flashing lights. You are unquestionably THE boss in this situation. Your computer cannot do anything that you do not allow it to do if you have any idea what you're doing.

I think what's more accurate is that the person who designed it is the boss, rather than me. He has designed it so that the computer will automatically restart without my input, which I think is a design fault.

[Emperor Ing]

I updated my computer with Windows' latest wave of punctuation mark changes last night, yet once again I see that hateful orange shield next to my "Shut Down" button on the start menu so I know full well that pretty soon i'm going to be forcefully ejected from my gaming and made to watch spinning circles waste my time, telling be about all the important and necessary exclamation marks need to be swapped out with periods and semicolons on the Control Panel Help Box.

Ugh.

[shawnhcorey]

But in all seriousness, you are a human being. Your computer is a fancy box with flashing lights. You are unquestionably THE boss in this situation. Your computer cannot do anything that you do not allow it to do if you have any idea what you're doing.

The problem is that Microsoft has decided you're to stupid to do proper maintenance. Or you could switch to Linux where you really are the boss. :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

I think what's more accurate is that the person who designed it is the boss, rather than me. He has designed it so that the computer will automatically restart without my input, which I think is a design fault.

Windows Update > Settings > "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them"

Who's the boss of what now? :smallconfused: Seriously, this isn't rocket science. :smallwink:


The problem is that Microsoft has decided you're to stupid to do proper maintenance. Or you could switch to Linux where you really are the boss. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe you're on to something here....



Human Beings... 1
Fancy Box... 0

[Mc. Lovin']

Windows Update > Settings > "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them"

Who's the boss of what now? :smallconfused: Seriously, this isn't rocket science. :smallwink:

It seems to really bother you that I'm annoyed at this guy. I understand how to disable the update system, and did so before I posted this thread. Unfortunately the problem had already happened. The person's decision to have the default setting as "restart without the user OKing it" was a bad move, and clearly has annoyed many people (not just in this thread)

[KillianHawkeye]

Just because I have no sympathy for your plight, it doesn't mean that what you're doing is "bothering" me.

But since I can see when I'm not wanted, I'll leave you to complain at your leisure.

[KuReshtin]

Put it down as a learning experience. It happened. You got caught out by it. You've now changed the settings to not do it again. Move on.

The reasoning behind the code has been explained in a previous post in the thread. It was put in so that some updates that are important for the system would get updated in cases of people who just wouldn't know to reboot the computer to get the updates done.

And to be fair, from your own admission, it's not like you were on the brink of finding a cure for cancer when it happened.

[Traab]

Im not sure if its the same thing, but I think my computer auto downloads and installs updates when I try to shut down my computer. Every now and then I get a window that says something about updating or installing something instead of "Your computer is shutting down" So I just shrug and leave the computer to its work while I go to bed. Its honestly been a long time since I last saw the "The computer needs to restart, click ok or wait" type of window. But then, I dont control the settings of things, my uncle is the computer guy of the family so when he wipes and reinstalls everything lord knows what settings he uses.

I am sorry you got nailed mid whatever with a sudden restart though.

[sana]

It seems to really bother you that I'm annoyed at this guy. I understand how to disable the update system, and did so before I posted this thread. Unfortunately the problem had already happened. The person's decision to have the default setting as "restart without the user OKing it" was a bad move, and clearly has annoyed many people (not just in this thread)

Nah the problem is that you didn't do the windows installation yourself.
I always disable updates during installation and once the machine is set up I reactivate it to ask me if it's even allowed to download.

[Avilan the Grey]

Autoupdate is a great feature and should be forced on most programs. ESPECIALLY the operating system itself and anti-virus software.

There, I said it.

The reason, of course, is that most users are morons. Or very lazy. Or both. I have lost count on how many friends and friends of friends and parents to friends of friends that have come to me and said "this is slow and doesn't work and every time I type in Google i get redirected to this porn site". And then I look at it and find 250 trojans and viruses on it.

Now it should be very easy to change, of course. But the default should, and need to, be crammed down the throat of people. Unfortunately.

[Elder Tsofu]

Hm, when my computer installs an update it gives me a warning that it will restart automatically in two days if I haven't done so. Not usually an issue since I've usually done that by myself 3-4 times by that time comes.

But I can understand that it might come as a shock if you, due to various reasons, are used to leaving the computer on all the time.

---

The only reason I have the updater turned off (notifications on) on my laptop is that I want to avoid it hogging all my internet access and immobilize my computer when I have to do something quickly. On the desktop this isn't usually an issue.

[Avilan the Grey]

Personally I always set it at "download nothing but let me know" out of habit. I guess "Download and then ask me when to install" would be better though, the habit was formed when I had dialup, so that was... 12 years ago.

[shawnhcorey]

I have lost count on how many friends and friends of friends and parents to friends of friends that have come to me and said "this is slow and doesn't work and every time I type in Google i get redirected to this porn site". And then I look at it and find 250 trojans and viruses on it.

Now it should be very easy to change, of course. But the default should, and need to, be crammed down the throat of people. Unfortunately.

They wouldn't have so much malware if Microsoft didn't insist that it had the right to scan your files. Windows operate in admin mode, not user mode. This means anyone can install software at any time. Hence, all this nonsense.

[lesser_minion]

They wouldn't have so much malware if Microsoft didn't insist that it had the right to scan your files.

They don't. And where are you even trying to go with this?


Windows operate in admin mode, not user mode. This means anyone can install software at any time. Hence, all this nonsense.

That hasn't been true for the last seven years, and didn't have to be the case for far longer.

[Avilan the Grey]

They wouldn't have so much malware if Microsoft didn't insist that it had the right to scan your files. Windows operate in admin mode, not user mode. This means anyone can install software at any time. Hence, all this nonsense.

I agree to a point*, however I consider having to help people actually install programs because they can't remember how to get /Root would be even worse. And I, personally, would immediately give myself admin rights. It is, after all, so much less of a hassle.

Besides, even though you are correct, it's a little moot; the design decision is made and therefore auto-updates are neccesary or people will never update their OS nor their anti-virus.

I don't know how the statistics are in the US (or anywhere else) but several reports show that in Sweden, roughly 10% of users refuse to install an anti-virus program no matter what. No arguments seem to affect this group, which mostly consists of "knowitalls" who claim they know what they are doing so they do not need anti-virus or firewalls.

On top of that, another 20%-30% have anti-virus software that they either never updated, stopped updating when their subscription ended, or never registred. These are the ones that truly need the forced autoupdates.

*As pointed out above it is strictly not true anymore, but the default user still have admin rights by default.

[shawnhcorey]

That hasn't been true for the last seven years, and didn't have to be the case for far longer.

If your computer doesn't operate in admin mode, then Microsoft can't remove illegal copies of its programs. Since they'll never stop doing that, it will always operate in admin mode, even if they give it another name.

[Rawhide]

Windows operate in admin mode, not user mode.

It hasn't done this by default since Vista.

[Avilan the Grey]

If your computer doesn't operate in admin mode, then Microsoft can't remove illegal copies of its programs. Since they'll never stop doing that, it will always operate in admin mode, even if they give it another name.

I have never heard of that. I don't think I have ever experienced Microsoft removing programs from my computer?


It hasn't done this by default since Vista.

I am not sure what you mean, but the default user account do have admin rights in Vista, 7 and 8 if you look at it. To blindly click "yes" or "allow" to give a program a blank check is not "not giving admin rights".

Yes, the "real" admin account has some "special" rights, but nothing that affects the common user.

[Rawhide]

I am not sure what you mean, but the default user account do have admin rights in Vista, 7 and 8 if you look at it. To blindly click "yes" or "allow" to give a program a blank check is not "not giving admin rights".

Yes, the "real" admin account has some "special" rights, but nothing that affects the common user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

"It aims to improve the security of Microsoft Windows by limiting application software to standard user privileges until an administrator authorizes an increase or elevation. In this way, only applications trusted by the user may receive administrative privileges, and malware should be kept from compromising the operating system. In other words, a user account may have administrator privileges assigned to it, but applications that the user runs do not inherit those privileges unless they are approved beforehand or the user explicitly authorizes it."

[shawnhcorey]

I have never heard of that. I don't think I have ever experienced Microsoft removing programs from my computer?

Have you ever run any illegal copy of a Microsoft program? They only remove their own software, of course.


I am not sure what you mean, but the default user account do have admin rights in Vista, 7 and 8 if you look at it. To blindly click "yes" or "allow" to give a program a blank check is not "not giving admin rights".

Yes, the "real" admin account has some "special" rights, but nothing that affects the common user.

If you give user accounts admin rights, then you don't have user accounts anymore. They all become admin accounts. A rose by any other name, smells as sweet. Don't be confused by the name; what it does determines what it is.

[Rawhide]

If your computer doesn't operate in admin mode, then Microsoft can't remove illegal copies of its programs. Since they'll never stop doing that, it will always operate in admin mode, even if they give it another name.

I'm sorry, but what??? [Citation Needed]

When has Microsoft ever done this?


If you give user accounts admin rights, then you don't have user accounts anymore. They all become admin accounts. A rose by any other name, smells as sweet. Don't be confused by the name; what it does determines what it is.

Most consumer linux distributions give the primary account sudo access, which is absolutely no different.

[Avilan the Grey]

Have you ever run any illegal copy of a Microsoft program? They only remove their own software, of course.

Yes I have. So far I only remember the program complaining about not being registred and refusing to start. I never had a program actually be uninstalled automatically, including Windows itself. Just buy a copy, enter the registry number (without reinstalling the software) and off you go.


I'm sorry, but what??? [Citation Needed]

When has Microsoft ever done this?

Exactly my question.

[lesser_minion]

If your computer doesn't operate in admin mode, then Microsoft can't remove illegal copies of its programs. Since they'll never stop doing that, it will always operate in admin mode, even if they give it another name.

No, Microsoft do not scan your files, and they do not "remove illegal copies of its (sic) programs". At most, they might check a license key against an online blacklist, and if it turns up on there, they won't do much more than pop up a dialogue box telling you that you "may be a victim of counterfeit software" and asking you to sort things out before continuing to use it.


Most consumer linux distributions give the primary account sudo access, which is absolutely no different.

Linux actually has no support whatsoever for users who aren't in the "wheel group" -- that is, users who, ultimately, have the right to make system-wide changes.

[Avilan the Grey]

No, Microsoft do not scan your files, and they do not "remove illegal copies of its (sic) programs". At most, they might check a license key against an online blacklist, and if it turns up on there, they won't do much more than pop up a dialogue box telling you that you "may be a victim of counterfeit software" and asking you to sort things out before continuing to use it.

Exactly. I don't know where shawnhcorey has gotten this weird idea from.

[shawnhcorey]

Exactly. I don't know where shawnhcorey has gotten this weird idea from.

Microsoft.

[Avilan the Grey]

Microsoft.

Again... Proof? You are the only person I know that have experienced this. As both I, Lesser Minion and Rawhide have pointed out, This. Does. Not. Happen.

[shawnhcorey]

Most consumer linux distributions give the primary account sudo access, which is absolutely no different.

No, it's not the same. sudo(8) gives the user the ability to enter admin mode; users are not in admin mode all the time. Big difference.


Again... Proof? You are the only person I know that have experienced this. As both I, Lesser Minion and Rawhide have pointed out, This. Does. Not. Happen.

I have been programming computers since before there was a Microsoft. It hasn't changed since its beginning.

[Rawhide]

No, it's not the same. sudo(8) gives the user the ability to enter admin mode; users are not in admin mode all the time. Big difference.

No difference. Admin accounts on Windows with UAC enabled are basically the same as accounts with sudo privileges, at least so far in the areas you mentioned.


I have been programming computers since before there was a Microsoft. It hasn't changed since its beginning.

Stating something over and over does not make it true. You keep stating this with absolutely no proof, when no one has ever heard of this, and if it were true, there would be rage and media coverage all over the internet.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have been programming computers since before there was a Microsoft. It hasn't changed since its beginning.

So you actually have no proof or experience with this? As Rawhide says, just repeating the same statement over and over, when nobody else know what you are talking about, does not make it true.

[lesser_minion]

No, it's not the same. sudo(8) gives the user the ability to enter admin mode; users are not in admin mode all the time. Big difference.

No, there is no difference at all, that is in how Windows has done things for the last seven years. And even before that, it was possible to create a standard user account rather than an admin one.

[shawnhcorey]

So you actually have no proof or experience with this? As Rawhide says, just repeating the same statement over and over, when nobody else know what you are talking about, does not make it true.

Your lack of experience is overwhelming. How could I possibly think you were wrong. How foolish of me to attempt to warn the naïve. In the future, I shall endeavour to not to tell the truth to the uniformed.

[KuReshtin]

Your lack of experience is overwhelming. How could I possibly think you were wrong. How foolish of me to attempt to warn the naïve. In the future, I shall endeavour to not to tell the truth to the uniformed.

Providing some sort of evidence to back up your claim would go a long way in convincing the 'uniformed'.
I have been working with Windows machines since before the interwebs was readily available to the general public, and I have never had this happen, even when running Microsoft applications that were not registered properly.

The most i've ever had was a message saying that I 'may be the victim of counterfit software', and that's it.
I think I did have one application disable some features until the application was registered and/or reinstalled to reset the date counter. However, that's something that I've had happen not only from microsoft, but from several other companies, most notably in the WinZip trial application.

[Rawhide]

Your lack of experience is overwhelming. How could I possibly think you were wrong. How foolish of me to attempt to warn the naïve. In the future, I shall endeavour to not to tell the truth to the uniformed.

Right. This discussion is over. Without any evidence, there is no way you're going to convince anyone of this, and it is obvious that we will not convince you.

Next topic.

[Avilan the Grey]

Or rather, back to topic. :smallsmile:

Regarding autoupdates... Until a few years ago they were a hassle, and I admit they still might be for people with lousy connections. Luckily the biggest one (Windows) can be set, but there are tons of others that have the feature, like Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, the browsers, Java... that either can't be configured, or is a hassle to, or you don't even KNOW is auto-updating. I tend to leave it all on, or uninstall the program completely (I don't use Reader, for example, since there are far superior software for free online that starts quicker and doesn't hog even half as much resources). The reason for this is that I have an excellent internet connection so I don't have to care.

[lesser_minion]

Right. This discussion is over. Without any evidence, there is no way you're going to convince anyone of this, and it is obvious that we will not convince you.

To be fair, Microsoft did work with a bunch of other people to come up with Trusted Computing, which could theoretically be abused to do something like what he says.

But TC relies on dedicated hardware, has plenty of entirely legitimate applications, and to date, there's been a disappointing lack of progress towards any apocalyptic nightmare scenario.

[Traab]

Man that was awesome, he must have gone through like 4-5 different message board cliches in the overall exchange. Making a big claim with no proof backing it up, proclaiming he seriously has more years of experience in the field than anyone else therefore he shouldnt have to provide proof of his claims, (Otherwise known as the girlfriend who lives in canada, no, really) then telling us we obviously arent experienced or knowledgeable enough to understand, attempting to dismiss any dissenting comments while STILL providing no proof of his claims.

[the_druid_droid]

Autoupdate is a great feature and should be forced on most programs. ESPECIALLY the operating system itself and anti-virus software.

There, I said it.

The reason, of course, is that most users are morons. Or very lazy. Or both. I have lost count on how many friends and friends of friends and parents to friends of friends that have come to me and said "this is slow and doesn't work and every time I type in Google i get redirected to this porn site". And then I look at it and find 250 trojans and viruses on it.

Now it should be very easy to change, of course. But the default should, and need to, be crammed down the throat of people. Unfortunately.

Yeah, "Enforce secure defaults" is on the Big Security Checklist for developers. And really, that's probably why this behavior was enabled by default. It's a bit irritating if it catches you unaware, but general good computing practices (regular saves, backups, tweaking Control Panel settings, etc.) reduce it from destructive to an occasional pain.


Or rather, back to topic. :smallsmile:

Regarding autoupdates... Until a few years ago they were a hassle, and I admit they still might be for people with lousy connections. Luckily the biggest one (Windows) can be set, but there are tons of others that have the feature, like Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, the browsers, Java... that either can't be configured, or is a hassle to, or you don't even KNOW is auto-updating. I tend to leave it all on, or uninstall the program completely (I don't use Reader, for example, since there are far superior software for free online that starts quicker and doesn't hog even half as much resources). The reason for this is that I have an excellent internet connection so I don't have to care.

Actually, Adobe has gotten better about this by bundling an updater with their software. You can choose auto update, inform me to update, and don't update, at least at present. I usually keep it at the second setting.

[Avilan the Grey]

Actually, Adobe has gotten better about this by bundling an updater with their software. You can choose auto update, inform me to update, and don't update, at least at present. I usually keep it at the second setting.

The problem with Reader is 1. it uses about twice as much resources as it really need, if you compare to all other PDF readers on the market and 2. it is... oddly uncooperative.

For one thing PDFs viewed in Adobe reader cannot be printed on our network printer (it says its printing but the data stream goes into limbo, the printer never recieves it). All other kind of documents can, and the same PDF files, when opened with any other PDF reader, are also printable.

[the_druid_droid]

The problem with Reader is 1. it uses about twice as much resources as it really need, if you compare to all other PDF readers on the market and 2. it is... oddly uncooperative.

For one thing PDFs viewed in Adobe reader cannot be printed on our network printer (it says its printing but the data stream goes into limbo, the printer never recieves it). All other kind of documents can, and the same PDF files, when opened with any other PDF reader, are also printable.

Oh, I'm not really urging you to use Reader. It is kinda slow/hungry; I'm just saying that if you use other Adobe products (I have a few) you should look into it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Oh, I'm not really urging you to use Reader. It is kinda slow/hungry; I'm just saying that if you use other Adobe products (I have a few) you should look into it.

Well I do find the idea that Flash now can be set to autoupdate a good thing. Because that is one of those programs I always forgets exists, since I only use it as a plugin in FF and IE. Especially since my default browser is Chrome, which uses it's own mechanics when it comes to update flash.

Anyway, for those who spotted a bit of contradiction in my two statements above:

1. Important programs, such as Virus and Windows should definitely be set to autoupdate by default.

2. Programs should be very up front with the fact that they DO run an autoupdate service

3. Autoupdate should be able to be turned off.

[Traab]

Heh, I agree with the flash player thing, I only seem to remember to update it when my various programs and whatever stop functioning and I get the little message about it being out of date.

[factotum]

3. Autoupdate should be able to be turned off.

You forgot 4. Once turned off, autoupdate shouldn't switch by default to being ON the next time you do a manual update, as the Adobe updater does! :smallwink:

[AMX]

You forgot 4. Once turned off, autoupdate shouldn't switch by default to being ON the next time you do a manual update, as the Adobe updater does! :smallwink:

Or the Java updater.
Which has the extra issue of not being entirely UAC-compatible - disabling it from the control panel doesn't work, you have to dig through the installation directory to find javacpl.exe, and launch it with elevated rights.
:smallyuk:

[Gnoman]

Heh, I agree with the flash player thing, I only seem to remember to update it when my various programs and whatever stop functioning and I get the little message about it being out of date.

This is one of the only cases where I believe that auto-updating should be mandatory, and non-disable-able. The "this video requires an update to Flash Player" link is such an easy sucker-ploy for malware deployment it isn't funny.

[Traab]

This is one of the only cases where I believe that auto-updating should be mandatory, and non-disable-able. The "this video requires an update to Flash Player" link is such an easy sucker-ploy for malware deployment it isn't funny.

True, thats why I ignore the link and type in the address myself. That way I can see the most up to date version and if I already have it or not.