www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update, just don't
By Thom Holwerda on 2017-05-15 23:08:32

Troy Hunt hits some nails on their heads:

If you had any version of Windows since Vista running the default Windows Update, you would have had the critical Microsoft Security Bulletin known as "MS17-010" pushed down to your PC and automatically installed. Without doing a thing, when WannaCry came along almost 2 months later, the machine was protected because the exploit it targeted had already been patched. It's because of this essential protection provided by automatic updates that those advocating for disabling the process are being labelled the IT equivalents of anti-vaxxers and whilst I don't fully agree with real world analogies like this, you can certainly see where they're coming from. As with vaccinations, patches protect the host from nasty things that the vast majority of people simply don't understand.

Great article, which also goes into Windows Update itself for a bit.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-49
.
Agreed for the most part
By darknexus on 2017-05-16 12:06:11
While I agree for the most part, especially for home users, dealing with corporate IT is a little different. Yes, you should review patches weekly at minimum and yes, you should be controlling your update process (WSUS or equivalent for your os). However, one can't just blindly install every patch that comes up either, especially if in-house software is involved which cannot reasonably be updated or replaced. Testing is needed.
Having said all that, testing should be weekly at a minimum and, if you do your job right, you won't be caught two months out of date.
Also, you should have reasonable security other than your os. Tightly hardened edge firewalls and email security are also an absolute must!
I suspect what most home users really object to is the interruption in their workflow and, let's be honest here, Microsoft in particular could (and should) handle this a lot more gracefully. The machine should not restart while the user is working and should not restart if there is a document open which has not been saved or other similar project. Bug the user, sure. Don't wipe out their workflow on the spot though (Windows 10 Home in particular).
Edit: Added some clarification.

Edited 2017-05-16 12:09 UTC
Permalink - Score: 6
.
Windows update is a scam
By danieljo2 on 2017-05-16 12:40:04
I don't agree with some of this. I run IT for our small office and Microsoft updates are a scary thing. And until just a few months ago, using IE was required for access to critical information systems off site. So I have had to keep 4 systems running Windows 7, with IE, safe and secure. Applying updates to Windows has been a pain for years. Don't apply them during a work day when the computer might be needed. Don't apply them if you don't have a backup from 10 minutes ago. Don't apply them in big batches. Be ready for anything to break. Be prepared to reinstall Windows because sometimes even Restore won't fix a bad update. And then people wonder why I run Linux on our server and of course all MY own computers run Linux. Yes, you need updates, but Microsoft could make the process so, so, so much better.
Permalink - Score: 8
.
I knew anti updaterr were here!
By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2017-05-16 14:09:10
BLeh, everyone thinks they're smarter than the average bear. They're not. Update regularly. If you have special needs, then test on on critical systems then update on critical systems. Its not rocket science, and you aren't Goddard.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[2]: Faults
By grat on 2017-05-16 14:18:38
> Go to America. They still believe the best think to build a house out of is paper and wood.

The part of America I live in requires housing to withstand 100+ MPH sustained winds. Not sure what part of America you think you're referring to, but I think your housing code knowledge is a few decades out of date.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
so yeah ...
By kristoph on 2017-05-16 14:19:08
http://www.osnews.com/story/2887...

You can see why some 'terrified' people might chose to disable this.
Permalink - Score: 6
.
Generally speaking....
By grat on 2017-05-16 14:27:01
At one end of the spectrum are the people who have no idea what a computer is other than a gateway to porn and free movies and mp3's-- they tend to get hacked pretty often.

However, in my experience, the more someone is convinced they know better than Microsoft about how Windows should be run and updated, the worse their computers tend to run.

I had a friend who would always go into the Services page, and disable any service he didn't recognize.

His computers always ran like garbage.

People who complain that Windows updates are always breaking, and have UAC disabled, are probably hacked already and don't realize the bad behavior of their windows system is likely due to third party cruft on their machines, rather than "Micro$oft suxxors!".

Given the amount of information out there, it's pretty easy to disable "bad" updates before they hit your system, and take the rest by default.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[3]: Faults
By Thom_Holwerda on 2017-05-16 14:34:15
> > Go to America. They still believe the best think to build a house out of is paper and wood.

The part of America I live in requires housing to withstand 100+ MPH sustained winds. Not sure what part of America you think you're referring to, but I think your housing code knowledge is a few decades out of date.


Also, in an area where earthquakes and tornadoes are common, it might actually make sense to build wooden homes instead of brick - a wooden home is a lot cheaper to rebuild.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[4]: Faults
By acobar on 2017-05-16 14:46:41
A house properly build on regions with high risk of earthquakes and tornadoes can be constructed to resist to most but few really powerful events. In the long run it does make sense to use better construction techniques, like the previous post suggested, if not based on costs alone (and I suspect it does as poor made houses require a lot of maintenance in the long run) at least for the lives it could save.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
Comment by sj87
By sj87 on 2017-05-16 15:57:53
Microsoft needs to fix its update process, otherwise I will always turn it off and help other to do the same should they wish to. It's just nonsensical to have the machine decide it wants to download or install a load of updates whilst you're gaming or watching a movie or whatever. Sure, it's supposed to avoid that automatically, but in practise doesn't.

It should at least give the user a day or two to skip the updates and only then it should be allowed to update the computer behind the user's back.
Permalink - Score: 5
.
Not black and white
By quackalist on 2017-05-16 17:13:28
Wish this was a black and white issue,but its not, my windows box has it turned on, as I can see many reason why you'd not have auto updates.

Nor do I have an answer as my brain hurts thinking on it.
Permalink - Score: 3

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-49

There are 1 comment(s) below your current score threshold.

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?