Microsoft tweaks Windows Update to be less "annoying"

About bloody time, too.

The automatic FORCED restarts were an abysmal practice and they have been going on for YEARS.

By qpw3141 on 16 Nov 2011

Thank god for that!

They always seem to force a restart when I go make myself a coffee and come back to find the graphic I've worked for hours on (and of course fogoten to save)has been shut down.

Now if they could just use Windows Update to fix Windows Update on Windows 7...

By Jaydax on 16 Nov 2011

Interesting turnaround since 10 year ago

Microsoft, mow somewhat beleaguered, are having to listen to their users more and more.

Apple, now more ascendent, are doing the opposite.

By Lacrobat on 16 Nov 2011

You can already control your own updates

Windows 7 allows you to download updates and choose yourself when to install them, or lets you shedule it at whatever time you like. If your PC does it automatically during the day, either change the setting or speak with your IT department.

By ChrisH on 16 Nov 2011

Surely it would be easier to have an option the first time the computer updates:

1. Always restart automatically.
2. Never restart automatically.
3. Ask me each time.

Some sort of subtle notification could be displayed if a restart is pending. Less subtle if it's really urgent.

By Pantagoon on 16 Nov 2011

Not really far enough

Pointing out that your computer needs a reboot is fair enough (well, apart from XP's default of nag every 15 minutes of course!). Auto-rebooting is a big no-no for me.

The problem is that people get burned by the auto rebooting, so some just disable Windows Update altogether - hardly ideal. Myself, I have it set to notify but do nothing. That way, I'M the one that chooses when to install and when to reboot my computer!

By Trippynet on 16 Nov 2011

Patch Tuesday...

... will be no more? Shame, I used to look forward to going on an extended coffee break every time it came round!! ;^)

*Seriously* - that's actually very good news. I've already found with Windows 7 the amount of restarts I have following updates have generally subsided and you can postpone them for a number of hours. I think Pantagoon's suggestion is a good one.

Lacrobat - I have to ask, in every post you put up there, you always have a dig at Apple. I'm curious to know why?

I'm a Windows user myself (although I have an iPhone) and have been for 21 years... The amount of frustration Microsoft products have caused in those 21 years is far greater than the amount of aggro Apple have caused.

I'm happy to see that Microsoft are far better-behaved now than they ever were, but if I were to switch to OS X at some point in the future, I don't see the amount of aggravation being anywhere near what Win 3.11/95/98/etc. ever caused me.

By mrmmm on 16 Nov 2011

Mmmmm

Were you an Apple customer when they released the clusterfuck that was osx? Or whatabout the core2duo line of macbooks with random resets? Ever use mobileme?

By windywoo on 16 Nov 2011

Surely it would have made more sense, and caused less grumbles, if any forced restarts did a sort of snaps on the applications open, kind of like hiberbate does, and re-opened the applications with the files being worked on in that state when the reboot finishes.

Or just done the more obvious thing and paid some clever chaps to figure out a way to apply changes without the need to reboot altogether...

By cerebros on 16 Nov 2011

Surely it would have made more sense, and caused less grumbles, if any forced restarts did a sort of snaps on the applications open, kind of like hiberbate does, and re-opened the applications with the files being worked on in that state when the reboot finishes.

Or just done the more obvious thing and paid some clever chaps to figure out a way to apply changes without the need to reboot altogether...

By cerebros on 16 Nov 2011

@Windywoo

I've used Mac OS on & off for the last 20 years and certainly there have been problems there too.

However I've found it more stable than Windows - although it's not perfect.

I still don't see why people get so excited and resort to using terms like you've just done. It takes away from the reasoning of your arguments and people don't take you seriously. That's all.

By mrmmm on 16 Nov 2011

It is already possible to set Windows Update to download automatically but not install until I say so, and with Windows 7 it then asks whether I want to reboot immediately or set a reminder for between 10 minutes and 4 hours. Its not rocket science!

By Saetana on 17 Nov 2011

Save before reboot?

How difficult would it be for Windows to force a save before forcing a reboot? It seems so obvious, so there must be an even more obvious problem with the idea. ... ... No, I don't see it.

By martindaler on 17 Nov 2011

@mrmmm

"I still don't see why people get so excited and resort to using terms like you've just done. It takes away from the reasoning of your arguments and people don't take you seriously."
That is the same baseless generalization as "people swear because of limited vocabulary" - I love a tactically inserted expletive and I have a grammar school education.
To summarise; I think the terminology that offended you was apt & amusing ;)

By dubiou on 17 Nov 2011

@Martindaler

Fairly obvious, really.

You expect to be able to do what you like to your data *within a program* safe in the knowledge that if it all goes horribly wrong you simply do not save.

It could easily be a major disaster if Windows helpfully forced a save whilst you went to get a cup of tea.

By qpw3141 on 17 Nov 2011

And what about Windows 7?

If this update for Win8 is such big news and 'users' are so upset about patches then why isn't Microsoft releasing this as an upgrade to Win7?

As soon as possible?

By ianalan on 17 Nov 2011

to dubiou

To quote you: "people swear because of limited vocabulary".

I am afraid that this anecdote is quite correct, and that you are quite incorrect.

I have a very thorough PUBLIC school education, so I must be right.

By PaleRider on 17 Nov 2011

@qpw3141

"It could easily be a major disaster if Windows helpfully forced a save whilst you went to get a cup of tea."

This, and indeed the whole argument about data 'loss' on auto restarts (i.e. uncommitted changes rather than saved data) really underlines Windows' creaking filesystem. It's ridiculous in 2011 still to be thinking about 'saving' other than merely for filing convenience. A proper filestore (such as, to stoke the fire further, is operated by OS X) would save successive iterations transparently so (i) you wouldn't lose uncommitted data on a forced restart and (ii) you wouldn't have a forced save overwriting data you didn't want changed (qpw3141's point) - it would be 'saved' as a new version. Windows is thoroughly old-fashioned in this respect, which is a real shame as they ahd the chance to lead the pack with WinFS which was watered down beyond recognition, in the end.

By markob100 on 17 Nov 2011

XP version

Windows XP gives me the option to download updates automatically and install them (re-booting if necessary) as and when it suits ME.

It works just fine, why not make it the default and leave the "nanny-state" versions as options

By bobellsmore on 17 Nov 2011

pretty lame

This is scraping the barrel in terms of "exciting new offerings" for Windows 8

This could be fixed and rolled out now on all versions of Windows.

It's surely time to get rid of the idiot on top at Microsoft. At least with Bill we were debating salient advances...

By Gindylow on 17 Nov 2011

Wholly agree with Gindylow

This has been an annoyance from day XP SP1 when Microsoft introduced the forced reboot. This should be fixed in *all* version of windows.

By selwe11 on 17 Nov 2011

Stick with 8 ... leave 9

What forced re-boot .... They're not holding a gun against the users head.

Think for yourselves.

I don't see a problem with the updates, because you caneasily set you PC / Laptop / Netbook to ask you .... What is the problem with that.

The only thing I have done is take ie9 off of my machines, as it screws up any printing from the net, and you get loads of script errors / warnings even if you have disabled this in the IE settings. Don't you just love MS and their rush released software.

That's why I never used Vista on my own machines.

By kiwiloverboy on 17 Nov 2011

@dubiou

Did I say I was offended? :^) No - just that I don't take what WindyWoo said seriously. I could ask how OS X is/was a clusterfuck, but for what I've used it and the other folk I know who use it, it just... works.

It's a lot more stable than OS6, OS7 & OS9 that I've used and generally it's been more stable/less aggravating than Windows.

However Windows 7 is pretty good these days and I've been running that since Beta 2, so it's not bad either and it's light years ahead in stability than was Windows 3.1, 95, Vista, etc.

And just to finish what you're saying about schools (for what it's worth), I went to a French school, so the insults I could offer would be of a completely different calibre... But I shall resist temptation and not fart in your general direction ;^)

By mrmmm on 17 Nov 2011

Common guys, this can be easily disabled even in Windows Xp.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555444

I can understand that average Joe can struggle, but if PC Pro editor complains that he has lost all night test work because of this it is just not right :)

By Piterski on 17 Nov 2011

Forcing a save would probably require application developers to follow some specified way of doing things and that would never happen. Office apps managed to auto save, perhaps this should be dumped on the App vendors to write better programs.

Save early save often and save copies too, If you don't you're a muppet who gets everything they deserve.

I have to say I have never at home or work had a forced reboot of Windows after a patch. But then I always shut down my PC when I have finished perhaps this is one for those that never turn their PC off.

By Lorribot on 17 Nov 2011

MS already has the technology ...

It's called VSCS (Volume Shadow Copy Service) and it can save as many versions of a file as you want with deltas, single instance storage, the whole works. Getting the majority of developers to use it and most users to enable it should take no more than 437,000 years.
Can anyone explain why AutoRecover in MS Office has gone from being very effective in 2007 to worse than useless in 2010 ?

By howardabates1 on 18 Nov 2011