Forced microsoft updates

Susie

Thanks, special friend for my avi!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
37,910
Reaction score
46,044
Location
Among the chocolate fairies:)
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone knows how to stop the forced microsoft updates for windows 10? I wasn't able to use my computer at all unless I let them install it! Best buy won't help me even though I have webroot, they want customers to buy their plan for $267! no thanks. If this isn't okay, pls. delete. Much appreciated.
 

PeteMC

@PeteMC666
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
368
Location
UK
Website
talonwraith.wordpress.com
Simplest fix is to disable the Windows Update service. You'll still get the security updates which are the only ones that actually matter as they come in another route now, but this will stop your problem happening:

1) Go to "run" and type services.msc and press enter
2) From the window that appears, find the Windows Update service and open it
3) In "startup type" (under the General tab) change it from Automatic to Disabled
4) Reboot

Job done.
 

WriteMinded

Derailed
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
6,216
Reaction score
784
Location
Paradise Lost
Hm. I thought it was impossible to stop Win10 from having its way with your computer without unplugging internet access. That's why I'm avoiding it. Please let us know how disabling it works in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Al X.

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
604
Location
V-Town, check it out yo
Website
www.authoralexryan.com
Hm. I thought it was impossible to stop Win10 from having its way with your computer without unplugging internet access. That's why I'm avoiding it. Please let us know how disabling it works in the long run.

As long as you have a recent release, you should have the option described above and will be good to go. MS implemented deferred updates recently in response to complaints.
 

SWest

In the garden...
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
23,129
Reaction score
12,525
Location
Where the Moon can see me.
Website
www.etsy.com
The Win10 I just bought actually has a "Manual" setting for Windows Update. I'm not sure if that will let me choose which programs to update going forward, but it does at least bypass "Automatic" updating...
 

WriteMinded

Derailed
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
6,216
Reaction score
784
Location
Paradise Lost
As long as you have a recent release, you should have the option described above and will be good to go. MS implemented deferred updates recently in response to complaints.
But that only forces the update to install at a later date.
 

tallus83

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
274
Reaction score
52
Location
NW Indiana
With all due respect, you would rather run an OS that is not kept up to date with security updates?
 

Surtsey Ana

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
36
Reaction score
3
With all due respect, you would rather run an OS that is not kept up to date with security updates?

Yes.

Most "security" updates are nothing of the sort. Ask yourself why Facebook is worth $500,000,000,000 when it doesn't sell any products or charge subscription fees? How do Google make so much money? Why did congress give permission for ISPs to sell your browser history? Now work out why Microsoft gave everybody a Windows 10 upgrade for free.

The Internet is the information highway - your information.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,286
Yes.

Most "security" updates are nothing of the sort. Ask yourself why Facebook is worth $500,000,000,000 when it doesn't sell any products or charge subscription fees? How do Google make so much money? Why did congress give permission for ISPs to sell your browser history? Now work out why Microsoft gave everybody a Windows 10 upgrade for free.

The Internet is the information highway - your information.

If you're going to post something that asserts that Microsoft security updates are bogus, you're going to have to prove that.

As much as I'm not a fan of Microsoft, the security updates are in fact what they say, mostly. Yes, other kinds of patches sometimes piggy back on them, but the security updates are important.
 

Surtsey Ana

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
36
Reaction score
3
If you're going to post something that asserts that Microsoft security updates are bogus, you're going to have to prove that.

As much as I'm not a fan of Microsoft, the security updates are in fact what they say, mostly. Yes, other kinds of patches sometimes piggy back on them, but the security updates are important.

I have no idea why my assertions would require proof, or indeed what that proof would be. If I assert that Hilary Clinton is the devil and post a link to an Alex Jones Youtube clip - would that count as proof?

Commercial operating systems are fairly well tested. However, the difference between Windows and IOS is that IOS does not have function on non-bespoke hardware. The shear number of x86 based computers means that all configurations cannot be tested. When it is discovered that a system featuring an XPF processor and a SuperG graphics card is utilised behind a Cisco 123 router, and the user installs the IPX/SPX protocol, can be compromised or malfunctions - a patch issued to all machines (regardless of their configuration).

Having worked in the IT industry, I can assure you: the most common remark on submitting a system for repair is, "It worked before the updates." - Maybe it'd be better to stick with the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Obviously, Microsoft got wise to this after Windows 7. "We're going to fix it anyway, and if we break your computer whilst attempting to fix your computer that wasn't broken in the first place - it's your fault."

There is method in the madness of the computer industry. A computer contains very few moving parts. A scenario particularly relevant to writers: your 25 year-old PC running Windows 3.11 is perfectly adequate for typing your memoirs. Windows 2000 professional required a mere 64mb of RAM and a 2Gb hard-drive.

If your computer is doing exactly what you want it to do, why would ever buy a new one? Why has the super-fast computer you bought five years ago slowed to a crawl? It's not like it got tired. A gazillion updates and patches have slowed your computer to a crawl.

Oh, well, you're just going to have to buy a new one.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,286
I have no idea why my assertions would require proof, or indeed what that proof would be. If I assert that Hilary Clinton is the devil and post a link to an Alex Jones Youtube clip - would that count as proof?

You're giving stupid and professional advice on a forum for tech support, where most of the users are naïve.

You're telling them that security updates are not really security updates. That's stupid. It's also potentially dangerous.

IHaving worked in the IT industry, I can assure you: the most common remark on submitting a system for repair is, "It worked before the updates." - Maybe it'd be better to stick with the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Obviously, Microsoft got wise to this after Windows 7. "We're going to fix it anyway, and if we break your computer whilst attempting to fix your computer that wasn't broken in the first place - it's your fault."

You might have "worked in the IT industry." You're not a professional. I am. (Certified for multiple OSs. Better than 25 years end-user support. QA experience for Windows, Linux in multiple flavors, every Apple OS since 1988).

I run this server. Which means I support the end-users.

When you say:

Most "security" updates are nothing of the sort.

You're giving asinine advice to end-users. You're potentially making my life harder.

I don't need someone who is in effect encouraging malware by encouraging people to not update with security patches. You're the equivalent of anti-vaxers.

Moreover, having looked at your post history, you're generally obnoxious, contentious and have little or no comprehension of courtesy towards others or the English language.

You're the only person whose ever been blocked from BWQ.

In other words, get off my server. You're a troll.
 
Last edited:

zanzjan

killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
3,208
Location
home home homityhomehome
One is inclined to opine that if one doesn't recognize that advising users not to run security updates is deeply bad advice, one doesn't know enough about computers and computer security to not run security updates oneself.
 
Last edited:

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
One is inclined to opine that if one doesn't recognize that advising users not to run security updates is deeply bad advice, one doesn't know enough about computers and computer security to not run security updates oneself.

Also: "Don't run with a knife in your beak."
 

WeaselFire

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
3,539
Reaction score
429
Location
Floral City, FL
If you don't want automatic operating system updates, then don't run Windows 10. Or any future Microsoft product. Microsoft determined long ago that the majority of "flaws" in its system were systems that had never been updated so they took the option away from users. In network versions, the network admin can determine which updates install and when, but not the end user versions. Might I suggest an older version of Linux?

Jeff
 

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
Last edited:

WriteMinded

Derailed
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
6,216
Reaction score
784
Location
Paradise Lost
If you don't want automatic operating system updates, then don't run Windows 10. Or any future Microsoft product. Microsoft determined long ago that the majority of "flaws" in its system were systems that had never been updated so they took the option away from users. In network versions, the network admin can determine which updates install and when, but not the end user versions. Might I suggest an older version of Linux?

Jeff
It's all about control. Once upon a time, a Microsoft OS was a lovely, customizable joy. Now it's a mean dictator. They want you online, and online you will by God go! Hell in the cloud.

BTW the Enterprise version will only allow you to postpone updates for a short while. You cannot avoid them altogether. MS prefers to break their customers' computers themselves, rather than allow users to do their own damage. It's easier for them to fix later. Maybe much later. Maybe never. They often don't get around to repairing their own messes, because they don't care if your (third party) applications work or not.

Yeah. I'm pissed at MS. When I can no longer find hardware so I can continue to use Win7, I will have to switch to Linux. Not looking forward to that day. I wonder why you suggest an older version of Linux? What's wrong with a new version?
 

zanzjan

killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
3,208
Location
home home homityhomehome
Ekshully it's more like trying to get technical info from a minwage WalMart flunky. 'Nother words, they're only paid to sell you shit.

Given the technical expertise at our local (and now defunct) Best Buy, I'd place my bets on the WalMart flunky having a better chance of fixing just about anything.

It's all about control. Once upon a time, a Microsoft OS was a lovely, customizable joy. Now it's a mean dictator.

A "joy" might be pushing it. :)

You can sort of see why they do this, though. The vast majority of users wouldn't run updates in a timely fashion, some ambitiously destructive virus/exploit would make the rounds, then MS would get massive bad PR as being unsafe/unstable. They clearly decided that forcing updates would be less problematic to them than the negative publicity. In their shoes, I'd probably make the same call.

And for your typical user, other than the annoyance factor, automatic updates are usually the way to go. Most people don't run much third-party software that could be potentially borked by the updates, and most popular 3rd party vendors are quick on the uptake. Once you do start being more of a power user, or running something unusual (say, software that runs scientific instruments, whose vendors are typically very slow to catch up to OS changes) then you might have issues, but at that point you also need to become proficient at managing/mitigating your own risk.

The cloud stuff, I dunno. I walked away from Windows for personal use when Vista came out (coincidentally, also about the time I no longer had to support Windows users at work) and jumped to Mac, which is much kinder to my command-line comfort-zone soul.

When I can no longer find hardware so I can continue to use Win7, I will have to switch to Linux. Not looking forward to that day. I wonder why you suggest an older version of Linux? What's wrong with a new version?

I would definitely NOT suggest an older version of Linux, especially if you're not a linux person. Security updates need to happen there too. Linux is awesome, but it's definitely not for everybody.

Mint is def. nice, in terms of usability for people used to Windows, with the robustness of an ubuntu backend and the (IMHO much better) cinnamon desktop manager. It's what I provide to beginning CS students.

My $.02.