I for one am convinced that a good percentage of update download failures and problems are a direct result of using the Automatic download and install option. This option increases the susceptibility to corruption and the detrimental interruption of data, due to situations present or occurring during the unattended downloads and subsequent installations. I personally choose the option to check for downloads but insist on when to download and install them. Your machine should ideally be in a neutral state of activity, free of any interfering processes that might otherwise compromise the event. Do you think I am being to cautious or paranoiac.
What say you?
- Thread starter olimjj
- Start date
I think you are being paranoid, from what I could see those of use that had failed firmware upgrades had some other underlying issue (as seen if you run sfc /scannow). Windows Update has run around 98% Successful for the last 5+ Years. If you want to manually update you still have that option.
Nope, I would say 1% is caused usually by self-inflicted states, either through what we install (usually buggy programs or forcing generic drivers for things like GPUs). Occasionally a bad patch gets released, but more often than not the post mortem points to something a subset of users did to their machines, all are running "X" piece software or hardware.
Auto downloads and installs were initially conceived and implemented primarily for IT computer network control and administration, and to keep users current without much effort on their part. It is also reasonable to be aware of and to control the update process in real time at your own discretion, being ready to intervene if necessary, even if as you say, it wont prevent problems. This procedure has worked for me and I have the time to implement it. Assurance, real or imagined, is a good thing
Actually it was the inverse, it was implemented to patch the consumer's machine because they were wrecking havoc on Public/Corporate Networks, at one point over 85% of XP Home machines were infected with one or more malicious programs. IT Professionals needed tools to test the impact with legacy LOB apps.
If you have the need to manually maintain your machine I say do it, it is a noble pursuit.
I'm not sure what this thread is about.
On the Surface Pro with Win8.x, you can specify whether to manually install updates or not... so set it to manual or notification only if that's what you want. It's a personal decision. Unless you intended to actually inform people that they could disable autoupdate, but the first post isn't written like that. Then it seems you're seeking validation, but that's irrelevant because you're arguing for your personal choice anyway. I really don't see the point: as long as the option is there, anyone can exercise it if they understand the risks/benefits.
On Windows RT, things are different; Microsoft won't let you change the autoupdate settings, though I do through a registry edit. I try to disable auto-update for everything, always have on all devices. Especially apps--you cannot roll back an app. Yet every so often (too often), there's some big update and a bunch of negative reviews appear for a given app because the update broke functionality or added more advertising or removed options or whatever. For system updates, normally I like waiting a little while to patch, see if there are any reported issues. But that's just a personal choice over control.
On the Surface Pro with Win8.x, you can specify whether to manually install updates or not... so set it to manual or notification only if that's what you want. It's a personal decision. Unless you intended to actually inform people that they could disable autoupdate, but the first post isn't written like that. Then it seems you're seeking validation, but that's irrelevant because you're arguing for your personal choice anyway. I really don't see the point: as long as the option is there, anyone can exercise it if they understand the risks/benefits.
On Windows RT, things are different; Microsoft won't let you change the autoupdate settings, though I do through a registry edit. I try to disable auto-update for everything, always have on all devices. Especially apps--you cannot roll back an app. Yet every so often (too often), there's some big update and a bunch of negative reviews appear for a given app because the update broke functionality or added more advertising or removed options or whatever. For system updates, normally I like waiting a little while to patch, see if there are any reported issues. But that's just a personal choice over control.
If you are not sure what the thread is about then read the posts again instead of assuming my need for validation. We are all aware, including myself, of the options available for downloads . You did no add anything new that was not already known. The question was whether or not the chosen download implementation option( auto ,manual etc.) was in any way related to some of the update problems some people were having.
You implied that the Auto Update was implemented by MS for IT organizations to make their job easier, when in actuality it was setup for the consumer market to update non-corporate machines. MS provides additional tools outside the Standard Windows Update. IT Organizations typically use Windows Software Update Service (running on a Server) either as a Stand Alone Service or integrated with System Center Configuration Manager. IT Organizations that run at any level of Standardization would never allow auto-updating, Updates must be tested, approved then deployed usually in stages. Eventually the new updates are added to the Gold Image and becomes the new base for all of the machines deployed.
There was a question?
The topic title doesn't count since it's so poorly formulated that it says nothing. Yes, it certainly does appear you're attempting to validate your own position and there wasn't a genuine question: "I for one am convinced" followed by "This procedure has worked for me and I have the time to implement it. Assurance, real or imagined, is a good thing."So there is no convincing you otherwise; this thread doesn't seem it was open to real discussion anyway, as Jeff answered your "question" and if I didn't add anything to the thread, you certainly haven't either. My comment per this thread wasn't directed towards your opinion on the relation between autoupdate and errors but rather towards the choice itself, especially given the small number of users who experience problems with autoupdate overall. To suggest a personal choice in update method has to do with some people's patch problems is like suggesting that driving on the freeway has to do with drivers having accidents.
There are lots of factors involved in any given patch failing for a certain subset of users, and whether they exercise the personal choice to do it isn't necessarily going to avoid patch problems: Let's say that everyone disabled autoupdate and went to manual (besides the obvious point that a good percent of users would simply forget to patch regularly anyway thus keeping security holes open), but that only means the subset of problem users is merely delaying their problems because Microsoft is not getting immediate feedback about said errors to fix it.
You simply choose to go with manual updating just as I do (some patch this year ended up breaking a bunch of games including one I play, so good thing I didn't patch immediately, ha), because "assurance, real or imagined, is a good thing."
I should have been more precise with my response, but I did infer the consumer user " , and to keep (consumer implied) users current ........". . I don't dispute what you have added but I think this thread has gone in an semantically unproductive direction.
Similar threads
- Sticky
