Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
I just installed Bazzite because my rig has been used for Steam 90% of the time and Firefox the other 10%.
Now I laugh when it tells me where the steam deck buttons are supposed to be, reminding me to choose the non-deck version next time.
But the 'HAY LISTEN' of Windows 10 dying and being forced to use Windows 11 at work was enough.
It's always nice when new people come into this community!
I don't mind that it just forces updates. I think for the vast majority of users that's the right call, otherwise they just won't update shit and blame everyone but themselves for when they get viruses and whatnot. Same really for Linux if it becomes popular enough with people who really don't know about tech.
If I was using Windows I'd want to turn that feature off ofc.
This post is kinda annoying to respond to. Not because of what you said, but because itβs hard to map my intuitions into words and convey exactly whatβs wrong with Windows in the first place.
Linux doesnβt require immediate rebooting, it assumes the user will choose the right time. And if Microsoft actually gave a shit about user autonomy, there are smarter ways to handle updates.
For example: instead of forcing updates in the middle of the fucking day, just wait until the system would normally sleep or hibernate, or when the user is clearly inactive (like at night). At that point, the system could save the current RAM state to disk, reboot with updates applied, and restore the session exactly as it was.
This isnβt sci-fi. NixOS can already do this (barring kernel changes). The fact that it works proves the concept is viable.
before anyone fucking @'s me... I get that saving RAM state across system updates could break shit. But it doesnβt have to, especially if you implement a tagging or compatibility layer to track what's safe to resume. That kind of bridging isnβt impossible, it just takes planning.
FOSS software routinely considers edge cases like this. Microsoft doesnβt. Thatβs not a tech limitation; thatβs just not caring about user convenience.
For starters, instead of forcing updates in the middle of the fucking day, simply wait until the computer would usually sleep/hibernate, or the user wasn't using the computer
I think that's what active hours is supposed to do
I think the operative word phrase is "supposed to"
Anecdotally... It doesn't seem to exist.
If theyβre allowed to force updates then they should be legally required to separate feature updates from security patches. Only security patches should be forced.
Feature updates that change or remove features users depend on should never be forced.
I do mind that it forces updates, in the sense that it decides when it's going to start downloading them, even if I'm in the middle of things, and also it takes too long while blocking any ability to use the machine while installing. Let me pause the download without waiting an actual minute for the update screen to load, and figure out a way to install them without completely blocking my computer, dammit!
It could definitely be better implemented. Doesn't it have a system where it starts the download process and stuff when the computer is idle? I think some Linux distros have such a system.
The update is downloaded in the background, and it asks you when to update, most folk just impulsively click later without thinking.
Hell, you can set preffered update hours!
Iirc the issue is that it people click later later later until it just forces itself upon the computer and of course that happens at the most inconvenient time. It should apply it somehow in the background and just automatically switch to that updated version when you next turn it on. So some sort of A/B model perhaps.
Power users and enterprise, that should be disabled by default. But for most users, you really need to force it at some point, even though it sucks
You can just block the update services from the internet and allow it again when you want it to update.
I use an old version of net limiter to do it and it works fine. New version is subscription trash though.
That is kind of the issue - sure, there's janky workarounds, using an outdated version of proprietary software to try to block parts of the system from working when you don't want them to... But in the end, that's just one problem of many, so I kinda just never came back to windows after the incident. I just responsibly regularly update my system, and probably have a better experience and lose less time just updating manually.
It wasn't old when I got it, bought a full license. Staying on 4, fuck 5+. I didn't actually get it for windows updates, I just have shit internet and anything thats fucking with it when i don't tell it to gets limited to 1KB/s, or blocked if that doesn't work well. Just so happens to work with windows shit as well.
I'm just on w11 because maintenance is significantly easier than redoing everything.
Nah. Windows is stalkerware digital slavery of the soul. It comes back with shackles. The future will make this far more clearly the case.
Won't someone think of the investors?
Linux distros can still do...questionable things. In grad school I tried Arch for a bit, and I once was late to a video call because I had updated my kernel but did not reboot. Arch decided that because there was a new kernel installed, I didn't need the modules for the old
but currently running!
kernel, so it removed them. So when I plugged in a webcam, the webcam module was nowhere to be found.
But yeah...somehow, still not as bad as Windows updates.
I wouldn't call that a questionable thing. Reading through how it happened paints a crystal clear picture of cause and effect.
Coming from Debian, it was...not expected. I understand how and why it happened, but the user experience was surprising.
Debian keeps the previous kernel around, which makes perfect sense to me
in the event that a kernel update borks your system you can just load the previous one. This would probably only happen due to out of tree modules (looking at you, Nvidia...).
That's how the update process for the kernel works. The currently running kernel and active modules are kept in RAM, while all files on disk are replaced. These new files can't be used by your old kernel meaning you can't load new modules.
Coming from Debian, it was...not expected. I understand how and why it happened, but the user experience was surprising.
Debian keeps the previous kernel around, which makes perfect sense to me
in the event that a kernel update borks your system you can just load the previous one. This would probably only happen due to out of tree modules (looking at you, Nvidia...).
Lmao winblows I'm gonna remember that moving forward. I think I'll be getting a lot of use out of it π
Wow, you must be one of today's lucky 10,000!
(the term "Winblows" is like 30 years old. We were trash-talking Windows 95/98 with it π).
Have some more:
Micro$oft
Micro$hit
Microsucks
Internet Exploder
Micro$hit was my favourite.
that op might be a ID-1T or just a 1user. PEBKC
That's why I always keep the machine offline when I'm setting up, then turn off or disable the Windows Update service first. Then I use the router and the HOSTS file to block every part of Micro$oft.
ok but have you tried linux
Naw man, Linux is too much work
My main machine is now Linux Mint. And I have an Android phone.
where linusx
Do Linux users still think Windows updates are unreliable? Can't remember a breaking release, personally or for my users, for 6 or 7 years.
Two days ago Windows Update deleted my Linux EFI boot entry on another disk.
About a year ago an update broke Bluetooth so that I could never add or remove any devices. That had not been fixed last time I tried, several updates later.
About 5 years ago I was flat out unable to update Windows for 6 months, due to what turned out to be a bug when an unknown hard drive was attached.
Slow and randomly fails is my experience.
For me it was more about updates installing junk I didn't ask for, undoing configurations I've made, and resetting my menu customizations.
Otherwise I agree - updates never actually broke my system. They just made me not want to use it anymore.
You must have missed the whole fiasco with OneDrive. I personally know people who are still recovering from that one.
I did miss it! Again, no issues for me or 75 users with varying flavors of 10 and 11.
Yes, because I also have a Windows installation and use it at work. So yeah, I do think it's unreliable.
When I still used this trash many years ago, it gradually made my PC slower. At that, consistently with every update.
many years ago
Yeah, like I said.
To my knowledge, it still happens. The concept's called "Windows Rot" and has been there since the 90s. Hey, but maybe adding bloatware like screenshotting your entire screen, every five seconds will magically fix it. Also, Windows has moved away from its own framework for the start menu and has instead used the JavaScript React thingy, result being that if you spam the start menu button, you can saturate your CPU. That's not a joke.
