Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Ryu Connor
Waco wrote:There are hacks, you shouldn't do them. One of the best features of Windows 10 is automatic updates that are impressively difficult to turn off.
cjcerny wrote:If you use wifi as your primary connection, you can set that connection to be a "metered connection". That will kill the updates. No way to stop them if you are using a wired connection.
cjcerny wrote:If you use wifi as your primary connection, you can set that connection to be a "metered connection". That will kill the updates. No way to stop them if you are using a wired connection.
DancinJack wrote:You shouldn't be turning off the updates. Just set the "active" hours to decent times and it'll restart during the night when you're not using the computer. Or whatever time you're not using it.
Topinio wrote:Problems with Windows Update are not restricted to "just" the major inconvenience of it rebooting the box when you're trying to use it.
There's also the taking ages to do so, during which you can't use your machine. This is particularly a problem on lower-end hardware, because those tasked with writing and signing off on Windows Update did not do so within the constraints of reasonableness.
Yes, there is hardware which is feeble out there and running Windows, but not that doesn't meet the software's requirements. It's just that Windows Update's requirements are far heavier than Windows'
DancinJack wrote:....Which is why you set the active hours to when you're not using the computer. Specifically, if you let them install at night, even if you're a night owl and only sleep say, five hours a night you'd have to have some pretty inept hardware for Windows updates to take FIVE HOURS to install.
I don't want to start ANOTHER thread derail about how awful Windows updates are. The point is don't just turn them off. Yes they can be improved, no they're not the worst, and just deal with it.
DancinJack wrote:I don't want to start ANOTHER thread derail about how awful Windows updates are. The point is don't just turn them off. Yes they can be improved, no they're not the worst, and just deal with it.
dale77 wrote:Well, when my 2004 era Athlon64 came to update to the fall creators update, it hosed the OS. Was working fine before that. Apps were dog slow, and would occasionally crash. The update itself would say "we just need to restart:", then "a problem occurred on install"
The only solution was a fresh reinstall of the OS. Working fine now but sheesh.
Bauxite wrote:there are actual good reasons and particular use cases to block updates.
Bauxite wrote:(lol @ "hacks").
Bauxite wrote:Lot of apologists here dodging the question, there are actual good reasons and particular use cases to block updates.
ludi wrote:And I'm going to venture that people who fit those narrow usage cases are generally not newly registered users asking how to h4x0r their b0x3n (pardon my nineties) on the Tech Report, but maybe I assume too much?
Captain Ned wrote:instructions on disabling the page file.
Captain Ned wrote:...usually ask next for instructions on disabling the page file.
Waco wrote:dale77 wrote:Well, when my 2004 era Athlon64 came to update to the fall creators update, it hosed the OS. Was working fine before that. Apps were dog slow, and would occasionally crash. The update itself would say "we just need to restart:", then "a problem occurred on install"
The only solution was a fresh reinstall of the OS. Working fine now but sheesh.
14 year old CPUs typically aren't in great use, so it doesn't surprise me there were some bugs with the wipe-clean update system.
bthylafh wrote:Bauxite wrote:there are actual good reasons and particular use cases to block updates.
Sure, but only if you're not on the Internet with that particular computer.
I do this for a living
Bauxite wrote:No, not really. I mean if you use edge you have a point (...ugh) but firefox and chrome exploits generally don't care about the rest of the OS. Controlling javascript and self-controlling attachment/link/download habits are 99% of internet defense for people not running services on external ports.
Bauxite wrote:I do this for a living...
Waco wrote:Bauxite wrote:I do this for a living...
You and auxy...shouldn't. Bad habits shouldn't come from those that are in a position of authority.
Topinio wrote:Waco wrote:Bauxite wrote:I do this for a living...
You and auxy...shouldn't. Bad habits shouldn't come from those that are in a position of authority.
Pretty poor form dragging auxy in just to attack her.
Waco wrote:If you are going to bring me up in threads I'm not even involved in you should at least take the time to read my posts. It's abundantly clear from your statement here that you did not.She's very staunch in her position that both updates and Windows Defender can and should be disabled. She uses basically the same reasoning I'm hearing from Bauxite.