Windows 7 installs updates, configures and

I switched off and about 99 updates were installed. I switched on and they were configured. I was waiting for chrome to load, it was slow so I had a poke around and I saw the shield on the off button. I decided to do a restart to get it out of the way (?). To my surprise there are 79 updates ( and they take ages). Maybe it is just the time of their release (Tuesday? ).
I don't have these issues with Linux.

geek_jh34, Jun 2, 7:14 pm

and do you need even one of those updates?

what are they for
which programs are they modifying

or you can turn updates off, or set them so they don't instal unless you allow them

don't get those choices on linux either

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 8:06 pm

I assumed they were Windows and important. Windows is a hands off system.
At present is at 47 / 79. I'm going to wait until they finish before I switch on.

geek_jh34, Jun 2, 8:12 pm

you assume too much, 15 of them are probably for explorer, which you don't use, another 10 for groove, which you won't use ever, 5 more for mediaplayer which never gets used and another half a dozen for excel, which you don;t even have installed, the rest are for obscure holes ten pages back from the front in programs you will never even activate
do you automatically update linux every month?, why?

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 8:18 pm

windows is default hands off, but very easy to be set as hands on
you can then check what they are for and discard them or allow them if they are required for processes you use
exactly the same as linux has set as their default, it tells you there are updates waiting and you have the choice to instal them if you wish
windows is only 2 clicks away from that same default

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 8:21 pm

but a question, have you ever even heard on the grapevine - never mind known anyone personally- that has been harmed or attacked or compromised in any way whatsoever by leaving the updates turned off

in windows, or linux

from tophat and win98 to the latest versions?
ever?

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 8:24 pm

The issue is that once they are down loaded they take forever to install (now 56/79).

geek_jh34, Jun 2, 8:39 pm

Do the important updates. Skip the recommended ones.

geek_r.g.nixon, Jun 2, 8:48 pm

whingeing because the updates takes too long is quite simply a first world problem. Move on

geek_king1, Jun 2, 9:47 pm

anything marked as critical or security should definately be installed

geek_csador, Jun 2, 9:57 pm



yes, several (this is in the enterprise space though, not consumers)

geek_csador, Jun 2, 9:57 pm

so thats a no then?, last 20years and nothing?
hmmm, I better turn them on again

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 10:16 pm



Yes it happens all the time. Security updates are not there for the fun of it and turning an off is the height of stupidity.

geek_vtecintegra, Jun 2, 10:36 pm

maybe the question should have been worded differently

have you since the days of win98, tophat, ever found, heard of, read somewhere, anyone at all, that has found that having all updates enabled automatically, suddenly found their rig was noticeably quicker, firing up or doing a process, hangups became a thing of the past, bluescreens unheard of etc
ever?

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 10:39 pm

lol, ya sheeple, you think it maybe a problem, you certainly have not shown one to exist, " it happens all the time" yeah?, really?
go on, write one up

geek_skin1235, Jun 2, 11:47 pm

The problem is it took from about 7:00 to 9:30 to install the updates - on shut down. Which means the machine is busy all that time if you should want to use it.
I take "critical update" on face value.

geek_jh34, Jun 3, 7:34 am

yes it can be an inconvenience especially when it says "dont' turn off your computer' but you are running a laptop and it's on battery and about to run out lol.

geek_nice_lady, Jun 3, 7:42 am

geek_ross1970, Jun 3, 8:20 am



lols

geek_hakatere1, Jun 3, 9:44 am



Indeed. Indeed.

geek_gibler, Jun 3, 9:47 am

I've got my hand to my ear, but I'm not hearing any of these instances where hiccups occurred that could have been avoided by installing all the updates
anyone can spout about how a cousins brothers girlfriends neighbours uncle had this happen, but you guys don't even bullshit that far, you just say yep it happened, then go back to tugging

tell me of even one instance of a person or equipment failed due to lack of updates that you personally know, not heard somewhere, actually know

then tell me how many failed due to updates, cos theres more than a few here that have been burned by updates that crashed their systems

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 4:58 pm

Clearly you don't remember the Sasser worm then.

geek_pyro_sniper2002, Jun 3, 5:01 pm

it meant nothing to me when it wizzed through, I was still running 98se, did it manage to catch you - the updates to block the gapping hole came out way after it had had a good wack - from what I do recall the hole was introduced in an update anyway - it wasn't in the original code
quoting ' millions lost globally' is not personal experience, sure to be a cousins girlfriends brothers mates uncle, naturally but not actually known to you huh

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 5:08 pm

Vista is good now with updates sorting it out over time, 7 is much better since release, 8 had the potential to be better than 7, only realized by updating to 8.1. Anybody not installing updates is foolish. I'm sure if Microsoft along with the other makers didn't need to they wouldn't go to the expense and trouble to do it. Same goes for other software venders, their constantly updating, its the nature of the beast.

geek_wayne416, Jun 3, 5:13 pm

so you haven't really come across any incidence yet, just keep trotting out the sales pitch and run screaming from the boogie man shadows they conjure up in your mind

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 5:43 pm

now if someone like oh nice_lady was to tell of even one computer he's repaired in all his time of repairing them that the repair could have been avoided if updates had been installed, - I may actually believe they could be of some small benefit
he'd probably also tell us of the many he's had to repair because updates were insatlled

why him, cos I know he doesn't swallow, he spits it out, unlike most of the well lubed throats around now, he has come up through 3.1 to 8.1 and probably now on 10, and seen the ballsup updates have created along the way

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 5:47 pm

Aren't these critical updates (essentially) to patch vulnerabilities that a virus might exploit?

geek_jh34, Jun 3, 6:40 pm

Get real, you don't install updates, your problem not mine.

geek_wayne416, Jun 3, 6:42 pm



Hubby says Indeed he has repaired quite a number of computers which for example blue screened, or got into boot loops after the application of updates to the system. He says he's going to have to think long and hard to remember any that he's repaired because they didn't have the updates installed. He says that's not to say it didn't happen but if it did then he can't remember just off the bat so to speak. Also he has a friend who apears on here quite a bit and is a long time tech who states quite clearly he's never installed updates and has no problems because of, or in spite of that.

geek_nice_lady, Jun 3, 6:53 pm

Agreed. rather than get into a pointless debate about why updates should be installed, how about the detractors list here every windows update (that they have personally analysed and have the qualifications/experience to back it up) and then tell us why the update is not and never will be required? As a pre-w3.1 tech myself, I would simply refuse to support an internet-connected system where the user makes a conscious decision to ignore updates.
Why?, because any non-updated system is a serious risk to the entire online community. It's open to every piece of rogue software you could imagine and becomes a breeding ground for further re-infection.
There are also numerous annoying bugs that might not affect many people, and which in themselves are not a security risk, but which under the right circumstances can give rise to very bizarre system behaviour.
There's also the issue of third-party vendor support. Many vendors will not waste their time attempting to resolve problems on a system which does not meet certain minimum requirements, Service Packs being the most obvious but even certain updated versions of dll's etc which would normally be rolled out as part of a patch.
Yes I too have experienced problems with systems failing after an update, but in those cases I would be confident in suggesting that the actual root problem that caused the failure was already there, the patch or update simply brought it to the surface.
There will always be renegades who won't install updates, for no other reason than not liking being told what to do. They rarely have a solid basis for refusing one or more updates/patches/service packs etc, they just like to argue. They are welcome to do what they like with their PC's, but just as many banks now will not allow you to use their system unless you meet certain minimum specs, it does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to foresee a day where ISP's may deny internet access to any system also not meeting certain minimum requirements, if for no other reason than to avoid any responsibility for allowing an unsafe or insecure system to do it's damage via their resources.

geek_cookee_nz, Jun 3, 7:15 pm

gulp

swallow

so not only have you never actually experienced a non update meltdown, none of your ( many?) friends have either

but with the entire network swinging on your neck its understandable you'd need to keep right on top ahh blah blah

swallow

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 7:25 pm

a service pack is not actually an update, certainly not sent out through normal update channels and usually constitute a major rehash of the system
you do realise you cannot rollback a service pack, you have to wipe the disk and reinstall to get back to the previous version

meanwhile keep swallowing or you'll drown in it

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 7:28 pm



now thats from a guy I respect, if he had said differently I'd still respect him, hes done the yards for a long time, and in general would blow most of you pretenders here into the weeds without flexing an arse cheek

read what he says, and swallow

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 7:31 pm

I think the problem with this whole argument is it will be extremely difficult to say definitively that some outcome was caused by something (win updates) not happening. There are just too many other variables at play.
It certainly does not mean the link is not there though.

geek_king1, Jun 3, 7:53 pm

read that again

we don't actually know anything about it or if it even exists but we'll have a bob each way and say it does

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 8:00 pm

I guess its obvious that I have no faith in any of the updates or the must be the best cos its the latest bullshit
equally obvious there are many who do think there is some benefit in installing the everso regular updates

theres no common ground, as I see it its just sales hype of no substance, you thinks its protecting you from the boogie man

who created the boogie man - was it the salesmen perhaps

you carry on swallowing,

me, I spit it out too

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 8:11 pm

its only extremely difficult because its never happened
but very easy to tell of the number of updates that screwed up, you in your bob each way manner claim it was the updates that showed the fault, thats why it screwed up, doh, it was fine until the update stuffed it, long live the update

gulp

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 8:14 pm

How you going to cope with Windows 10 - I hear they aren't giving the option to disable updates

geek_king1, Jun 3, 8:22 pm

so I'm to be bullied into it, that sound kosher

now as I ran 3.11 for many many years, then when vista had been out feking every one that touched it for a couple of years I went to 98se, after vista was what?, may have been about then I switched to XPs3, xmas this year I had a rig drop its mb, the replacement came with win7, its still running it minus updates from the day I got it
chances are win10 is still 5 yrs away for me, I have no need to run in the rat race to be at the front, win7 will do all I need it to do, xp would probably do it all too, I just can't be stuffed formatting this drive to put it on it,

geek_skin1235, Jun 3, 8:29 pm

A service pack isn't an update. ok now the straw clutching has begun. Yes, I personally encountered the Sasser worm back in the day, and yes it was fixed with a windows update. Unless an SP has been slipstreamed you can uninstall it. You're pretty set on your view that Windows Updates are a waste of time and you're welcome to it. I don't think any amount of facts would actuality change your view. Windows must be perfect from the moment it rolls off the production line.

geek_pyro_sniper2002, Jun 4, 8:38 am

last time i tried a linux OS it also had numerous updates, so does OSX, an operating system that doesn't get any updates is called abandonware.

geek_black-heart, Jun 4, 8:53 am

another well conditioned sheep that must have the latest, greatest, anything the sales boys can foist on him, and have him so convinced he is vulnerable if he doesn't take their dose each month
I'd have agreed re the other OS's - until he got into abandonware mode

quick, you better check if another update has been released so you can get your gold sticker this week

geek_skin1235, Jun 4, 12:35 pm

the bit you missed was a service pack is issued when they realise the original is shot full of shit, and beyond salvage,
I'm open to changing my mind, would be happy to if you could show an instance were an update actually managed to save some poor barstads arse
the sassar exploited a hole that was introduced in an update, they later produced yet another update to close the hole - if the first update had not been installed sassar wouldn't have been able to get in at all

geek_skin1235, Sep 20, 4:20 am

Share this thread