> shown they don't respect the user when they force shutdown for system updates

Are you familiar with the prior state of things that explicitly motivated this change?

The amount of money lost when millions of small restaurants and other retail shops suddenly become unable to accept customer payments for an unknown amount of time because Microsoft thinks Windows should force update during rush hour rather than allowing the computer owner to wait until closing time, would seem to be far greater than the amount of money lost with once-in-10-years WannaCry attacks

	▲	makeitdouble 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Don't you get out of forced updates if you set yourself regural update point ? (e.g. every Sunday night) Most users, for better or worse, don't want any update ever, unless they wish for a specific feature. We're at a state where there's only once-in-10-years massive attacks exactly because of mandatory security updates that will be forced on the user if they have no intention to install it ever.

▲

malfist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why does that matter? I should be allowed to explicitly chose the risks I want to take. Not microsoft. Especially not for microsoft to decide, no matter what I'm doing, or what I have open and unsaved on my computer, now is the time they think my risk is too great and tuesday has passed, so reboot reboot reboot.

▲

mapontosevenths an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you aware that MS already sells an operating system that can install patches without rebooting? Are you also aware that Linux can do the same? Why can't a supposedly mature 40 year old operating system do the same? Do you have any concept of the number of man-hours it would save globally? The amount of lost work? The impact on patching compliance and security?

My guess is they don't actually believe they have any competition, and therefore don't care to improve anything that doesn't also improve their bottom line.

	▲	testartr 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		every week when I login into my Ubuntu with unattended updates enabled I see this: "system restart required". the hot patch feature you mentioned is paid

▲

jwitthuhn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes the security of every Windows computer was much better then, any software that automatically updates itself without user consent is obviously a massive security risk because the user is no longer in control of what software they run.

▲

guelo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Security is the catchall excuse for every bad big tech behavior because they know "security" professionals will defend every f-the-user move they pull [1]. Is it improved security when I lost days of work because microsoft (and you apparently) think their patch is more important then my data? Notice, by the way, that security incidents can cost big tech a lot of money but my lost data is no skin off their back.

[1] It reminds me of dermatologists, so hyperfocused on skin cancer that they tell everybody to hide from the sun, completely oblivious to all the harm their advice causes to the rest of our health.

▲

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really. Maybe I'm jinxing it, but I've never had a problem caused by failure to update my PC.

Servers I understand because they're exposed to the Internet at all times. Not PCs

▲

p_ing 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Lest one remembers Win 9x or even XP w/ no firewall on residential networks.

	▲	hunter2_ an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's interesting how much different the landscape was in that era: single-device residential environments would have no firewall at all (just a PC with a publicly-routable IP address) and dial-up kind of fueled this due to PCI slot modems, but as the outboard nature of DSL and DOCSIS modems made it easier to build multiple-device residential environments by adding a router, suddenly everyone had a firewall (as a byproduct of NAT). Then you've got malware, which was far more prevalent on PCs through that transition relative to today, but now we've got IoT stuff probably not being updated as it ought to be, potentially hosting malware that serves as a proxy to sidestep an in-router firewall.
	▲	AlexandrB an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Behind a NAT. Can't remember a single problem with the described setup and I've been using the internet since dial-up was the only option available. Getting hacked when you don't have any open ports (thanks to NAT) is and was pretty unlikely - what was more likely is some kind of drive-by exploit in Flash or IE. The biggest problem I experienced with old Windows was general instability in the form of BSODs and driver compatibility problems.