Finally After Doing Ever Step Known To Control Windows Updates & Sudden Reboots...

jesussaddle

Power User
:forkknife::forkknife:So basically, the updates still were pushed on my computer despite many hours of precautions. The most recent one, although not listed on my system according "updates history", happened an hour ago. Right in the middle of installing Epic's unreal engine (probably corrupt) and doing a long compression of some huge video files.

Microsoft trolls will be happy to know that I have spent hundreds of hours of install time that they believe should be at risk at their whim, have 800+ audio plugins and half a dozen DAWs, and Video Editors and 3D Game Engine software on this system

The steps I took, one by one, were all proven to have been recently bypassed by Microsoft, that admitted to "more aggressive updates". Use of metered connection settings, disabling of Update Service, Registry fixes, removing folders, even removing Microsoft's hidden "permissions" to prevent their being able to do this. A great number of intelligent persons worked on those workarounds.. ;)

Note that I have a Windows Home edition, and have had numerous settings removed, and after the Fall Creators update was forced on the system without warning, I began having a weird error message about an unworking Direct X service (even though it appears to work fine after startup).

After this Spring update, once again Windows has turned back on the Windows Defender Firewall, even though Windows Defender remained off (many anti-virus programs, including mine, have their own firewalls that can be much superior to trusting MS). Of course that means I need to hunt around and figure out how this happened, and check other settings as well.

See:

https://community.norton.com/en/forums/windows-firewall-activated-after-latest-win10-updates-4122017

My machine is 95% offline, and in 15 years using my AV and host methods I have yet to get a virus, and the machine is not accessible to others (there isn't even a wifi adapter to access it) so I don't buy the argument that immediate Windows Updates at every possible time are necessary for security.

Some may believe that Microsoft is not violating the standards and laws created to prevent monopolies. I believe they sell a product governed by the requirements that a buyer has rights to it. I believe that in a lot of purchaser's cases they only masquerade as performing a service. It is still a product because the company began by offering a product, and created a virtual monopoly by offering that product and being aided by federal policy. Yet in our case as musicians that do modern software-aided music that product, or the Pepsi version of it..(Apple) is vital to what we do.

While I can see the argument that MS is just a profit-motivated private company, as a result of this recent experience I do not accept that ordinary profit motive explains the domination of the large players in these tech industries. Profit motive will do a lot, but the speed and resolve of such tampering speak to more than that. :forkknife: Restaurant Management.
 
Last edited:
Updates. The softwareperiodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice.
 
New versions of Windows 10 will be released every 18 months going forward. There is no way around this. It's just the price of admission for using Windows 10. It ensures that active machines will in theory never be more than 18 months out of date on patches. If you set your active hours, your machine will not automatically reboot for updates unexpectedly. You can also choose a specific time for pending reboots as well. People are terrible about keeping their PC's patched and updated. MS is taking some pretty drastic measures to try and ensure the security of Windows 10 long term.

The Enterprise version of Windows 10 has more options for controlling updates aimed at business that want to self manage the update process.
 
One of the reasons that I switched to Apple a few years ago. My Mac is much more stable than my Windows machine ever was. Updates are installed when I want and only when I say OK. Plus a pass code must be entered by me for any install or update. I usually wait a month or two before installing any Apple OS update to let them work out the bugs first. MS does not give you that option. Plus I got tired of my machine crashing every couple of times that a Windows update was installed.
 
Microsoft's update policy has nothing to do with security and everything to do with controlling their users. So far, I've had updates break software and drivers and reinstall crapware that I'd removed. Their anti-virus throws tons of false positives too. After using 7 since it came out with very few complaints, I'm utterly disgusted with 10.
 
I will try to stay with my Win 7 as long as I can... I'm really scarred to switch to win 10....
 
I had similar issues years ago. I want to spend my time working with my gear (guitars and studio), not messing with my @$#%&!! computer. After a lot of frustration, I finally gave up and switched to Mac. Almost no computer issues with my Mac platform. I am certainly NOT trying to start a Mac vs Windows flame war. I don't care much for Apple's business model, but I hold far more dislike for Microshaft. Both companies have lost any pretense of respect for their customers and feel that they can control your computer. It would be like purchasing a car from a car manufacturer and then have them telling you where you can drive and giving you no choice but to comply. Additionally they are making modifications to your vehicle whenever it suits them, without your consent.
 
I hate the auto update also. As the op pointed out some people use their system for multiple things. If you build a high end high performance pc and want to use it for audio, gaming and video editing there's no way to set an active update time when this system is at home and not an office. You may leave it on to compile video, download a game etc... The updates are constantly breaking software and drivers. Ever since Microsoft has tried to turn a pc into an apple device, control your system and the content you have on your system, I've been unhappy with them.
When windows 95 came out it was an amazing thing that Microsoft standardized the way hardware manufacturers could integrate their products into a pc and software interfaces became somewhat standardized also. Before that it was a nightmare getting things to work with all the different brands and drivers as most all used a different way.
It's becoming a trend to sell you a device but taking away your control with what you wish to do with it. Mostly thanks to apple and no one voicing resistance.

I fear a day is coming when everything you do with an electronic/digital device will be controlled/metered. You see more and more games with ingame purchases, software with monthly or yearly subscription fees instead of owning it and its features when you buy it. You have to accept their software license agreement which gives them more control than you usually have after paying them for THEIR (not your) product.

Everything/everyone is being studied and mapped out, which the internet has made possible for one purpose. Control and to turn you into this:


duracell.jpg



LOL!!!! :)

Well not a battery but actually this:



dollar-clip-art-gold-coins-dollar-sign-clipart-2638170.jpg

:eek::eek::eek:o_O
 
You can pause updates completely for up to 35 days if you have something running that can't be interrupted. You can also deffer quality updates (security patches, etc.) for up to 30 days and feature updates (new OS versions) for up to 365 days. It can be annoying at times for sure, but it's not the demon that many people make it out to be. Windows 10 is definitely not perfect, but it's leaps and bounds better than the festering turd that was Windows 8.
 
You can pause updates completely for up to 35 days if you have something running that can't be interrupted. You can also deffer quality updates (security patches, etc.) for up to 30 days and feature updates (new OS versions) for up to 365 days. It can be annoying at times for sure, but it's not the demon that many people make it out to be. Windows 10 is definitely not perfect, but it's leaps and bounds better than the festering turd that was Windows 8.
That may be what they tell you - but its not how it happened in practice. I had my updates turned off in the services. For the Fall and Spring Updates I was not notified that any updates were going to take place. For the Spring Update it literally happened on a boot up, with no warning whatsoever - at least not one that worked and showed up above all the windows of my programs. For the Fall Update I maybe had a 5 minute "window" to try (and fail) to successfully log out of programs - many times I have half a dozen programs up, its not easy to exit even in 5 minutes.

Microsoft didn't realize Home users were going to turn the Windows service off. So when they did, they began turning users "update service" back on without their authorization. From what I understand at best it was a 30 minute warning for some, if the warning worked, but many times it did not. Many people tried closing out programs and could not exit out in time.

It can be argued that I agreed to this as a user of a license, so I hear that side of the argument. But hear me out as well. Because I periodically checked for close to a year, and Microsoft had not turned my update service (or the countless others who used this tactic), I could periodically update during a down month, when the PC was free - and as Neosound points out above, at a time when I'm not using it as part of a render farm, or in some other batch process or set of intensive tasks for hire where it is not possible to randomly reboot or interrupt it.

(Keep in mind I would never install Anti-Windows spying tools because I want Windows to access my information.)

What became a problem for me was that Microsoft, as they stated to journalists, decided to get "more agressive" and turn back on the update service for those of us Home users who had figured out to turn it off. I'm basically even "okay with that" in a sense, because that's their call - they will lose a lot of customers to alternatives, but that's their call.

Here's the issue. Read my post and you will see that they back doored and reverse engineered several methods and work-arounds that people like me, who own entire systems that are practically speaking the result of hundreds of 3rd parties working together in harmony. As long as I maintain the software and O/S in a stable state it means that small companies can better succeed in keeping pace with the big boys. Take for example RME, who created one of my sound cards. Its about 5 years old and due for an update. And for me personally, I'm glad I'm not a small company like that, needing to contend with Microsoft's force-updating policy, which means that they must get on a programming schedule basically unnecessarily dictated by Microsoft, to keep the drivers working. In my case they gave up. And don't provide an updated driver. You would need to ask RME if this is good for them or bad for them, but a number of the personnel of such companies have personally complained to me that Windows is too aggressive and arrogant. No, Windows did not save the Earth from invasion any time recently. They are not infallible.

My point is that even if RME wanted to update drivers for a 5 year old card, they cannot keep doing this and re-checking everything every 18 months. 18 months is BS IMHO. RME are not a puny company - they're a very hardworking and innovative company that has provided musicians with valuable hardware for years. Yes, they would want us to buy the latest hardware - but even though know that that hardware, and the drivers can have potential problems - and not be as trouble-free as the earlier driver-hardware pairing. So do you feel that their customers who they have served loyally should now either be forced to dump hardware at the rate dictated by Microsoft. All I can say is the bugs caused by this don't look good if you're a small company - and to me its not that company that actually deserves all the complaints- all because its for the good of the hive. We should just outpace small business because Joe and Jill once got a virus once and were sold to think its because Microsoft didn't patch rapidly enough to thwart "new threats"? Were not the holes the result of bad O/S methods to begin with? "Registry to all without restraint" is a rather dumb idea to begin with. And lack of allowing 3rd party involvement in the security policy development process is equally dumb.

I personally don't buy that Windows won out in the end not for the reasons that Hollywood tells us. . I see it was part of a clique. I had a good friend who was part of another clique, and he confirmed that Apple was a part of that. Two extremes. The Coke and Pepsi of personal computing. There's limits to the number of such companies and innovations, and for military reasons I certainly understand that. However, for people who on one had will admit to that, and on the other hand the next day will deny it, are a bit frustrating for me.

What about Steve Gibson, who wrote the software "Shields Up" because he discovered that a Majority of Microsoft Systems were apparently purposefully left TOTALLY EXPOSED, with ALL OF THEIR PORTS OPEN TO ATTACK? Is it possible that Microsoft did this by accident? Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson_(computer_programmer)

Wikipedia says that Shields Up was a firewall tester. What is called a Firewall is necessary if you are communicating on some channel. If you have no need for them, why leave them open? - Because in that case the O/S software won't allow any handshaking or access. Shields Up just checked the O/S ports (the communication channels in the O/S), and guess what? They were all left open by Microsoft.. And were they left open for a constructive reason? That depends on your honesty.

Well, Steve did well, and can buy as many computers with different operating systems as he wants. All because he didn't listen to a world Microsoft said about their security practices and the reality of PC security at the time.

What about Amiga Computing, who were the first system that provided actually reliable multi-tasking, not by use of "the registry" but by working with 3rd parties to allow safe integration, while providing a means to avoid malware openings (which practically came into being in its most virulent form due to Windows "registry" concept), while being open to letting 3rd parties see the O/S code (unlike Apple)? No, Amiga were not Commodore. Amiga were bought out. Now Verizon owns Yahoo and AOL, and have decided to call it Oath. Interesting name. And let me guess, they want me to agree that never under any circumstances do I have rights in court.

The reality some seem to live in, to me seems kind of like a plausible reality, not the real one. But then, I watched it develop from scratch. I remember when there were hundreds of search engine companies and database companies competing, and many brilliant systems being rolled out. One by one, snapped up. Looking up one such company afterwards, seemed the military had it and the company had changed its focus. None of that is recorded on Wikipedia. Were I not there, II would have no idea what trends influenced this "reality".. Money, influence, behind the scenes agreements, are tough to look into. Its comforting to "know" that things are for the good of the future hive. I know, I'm asking a whole lot of dumb questions.

We all must choose one form of oath or another, because no one is an island. But in my study of the "corporate personhood", in my questioning, I don't find much incentive for corporations to be empathetic, trustworthy, or real as persons.

And I enjoy the feeling of breathing air in what I have happily confirmed is a real reality. I am happy to trust when trust is real.
 
Last edited:
The interface they provide to pause or deffer updates does actually work, but you have to stick to their time limits. The 35 day pause feature was only recently added in the 1709 build (Fall Creators Update). They now check for and correct any known "hacks" that are floating around online to try and bypass the update mechanism. The only completely reliable way to avoid updates entirely is to disable your internet connection. It can't install what it can't download.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no M$ fanboy. I've worked in IT for nearly 15 years, so I've had my fair share of frustrations with them. Forcing people's hand on moving to 10 due to newer chipsets no longer being compatible with older versions of Windows is particularly greasy. Considering Windows runs on nearly 90% of computers worldwide, it's what we're stuck with. Once you get past some of the warts, it's actually not a bad OS.
 
Last edited:
I have an older computer (Lenovo Thinkpad X130e loaded with Win10) dedicated to live performance. I use it to run our light show and play music while we're on break. I rarely connect it to the internet. If I did, it was to get an update. One time before a show I had to restart the computer. When I shut it off, it entered the "Please wait while your computer prepares updates. Do not shut off your computer" screen. It took 45 mins for it to finally shut off. Lucky for me I had started the process an hour before show time. Had I done that 10 mins before the show started I would have been screwed.

Point being- Windows really needs to give the user more control over updates.

At this point I've tried to disable updates. Just when I think I've done everything, it tries to update. Not only that, it can't update to 1709 due some RealTek hardware issue. Maybe that's a good thing? lol. It fails every time. The thing is, even when I'm not connected to the internet, I get popup messages telling me I need to update. Those are extremely annoying!
 
Unplugging from internet the pc could be a good move (and this is exactly what I do) but unfortunately many plugins need a connection to be activated (and the ones, like toontrack, who permit an offline activation are few - waves among the others). I wish that when I will have to switch from 7 to 10 they solve this or add a “no update please” option.
 
The interface they provide to pause or deffer updates does actually work, but you have to stick to their time limits. The 35 day pause feature was only recently added in the 1709 build (Fall Creators Update). They now check for and correct any known "hacks" that are floating around online to try and bypass the update mechanism. The only completely reliable way to avoid updates entirely is to disable your internet connection. It can't install what it can't download.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no M$ fanboy. I've worked in IT for nearly 15 years, so I've had my fair share of frustrations with them. Forcing people's hand on moving to 10 due to newer chipsets no longer being compatible with older versions of Windows is particularly greasy. Considering Windows runs on nearly 90% of computers worldwide, it's what we're stuck with. Once you get past some of the warts, it's actually not a bad OS.

I agree that it is helpful as an O/S - I can't imagine the number of programmers and the hours spent - Just like I'm sure Google is very helpful, and has a massive infrastructure of development gurus behind it. But these are still monopolistic IMO when you examine the back story. So really I'm just questioning the integrity of the process "a little" because there are two viewpoints:

The more common Viewpoint that says MS does this because they can do things like continually turn on Cortana or Windows defender on someone's upgrade (which they evidently are doing - at least I'm just now finding that whenever I try to install anything I now get a Windows Defender Smartscreen Can't Contact The Internet message.) Or continually turn or boost the level of spying, which I haven't personally seen proof of except once, since I've been using tools to block it that seem to be working.

The second viewpoint, which is the one I have, is that something is very wrong with the degree to which conglomerates in the tech space are integrating and monopolizing innovations or brute force development. Its political and social engineering, and the reason why I don't believe Google is intended to be a "great search engine" in the sense of being a flexible one. It is a common denominator idiot proof search engine, and I question the integrity of its functioning and direction - although there are arguments for keeping people stupid on purpose for safety reasons - its not a good solution when it tries to apply itself evenly, including to some very smart persons.

Re Microsoft re-integrating Windows Defender after users have (multiple times) chosen not to use it - I use one of the 2 top rated for 2018 antivirus packages, so per MS talking points, they don't want to force me to use it. And part of the problem is their double-speak.

It is just an example. Their tactic of double-speak generally screws things up. If Windows Defender, which I turned off in every way I can think of (per my Windows interface its off), is still turning itself on and involving itself in my activities, then you would think the message windows it opens would actually be viewable by a user. Because when you're in the middle of doing a bunch of things, and waiting for your program to install, and you realize something is wrong, you must close every window to find the helpful MS message. Is that not idiotic, that they block you when you haven't even agreed to use Defender, and yet they don't let you know you're blocked from your installation? I mean, its like a rat jumping onto the seat you're about to take on the subway. You don't see the rat, and will probably damage it by sitting on it; and errors do happen when you try to install a second program when the first is still attempting to install - not that I'm inexperienced enough to do that by mistake, but how many people don't realize what's happening, and crash out their system as a result of these passive -aggressive and double-speak tactics? And its more likely to be offensive and harmful to the people who are more advanced with their use of computers, and more responsible. Its like there are a bunch of crabs in a bucket. The crabs can't escape because their fellow crabs will not let them. This works on two levels. On what seems to me to be a first level, a loyal-to-MS group feel they are escaping a barrel. They find it exciting that they are more skilled than those around them. They feel empowered. When anyone complains they feel the lesser-skilled are trying to hold them back. But no one is in reality using force upon them - consensus is just lacking and for good reason. At a more real level, if you've seen more effective programming and see a possibility that Microsoft is stifling innovation and allowing susceptibility to threats in order to shame users into the fold (along with planned obsolescence) , you can see that it is the loyal-to-MS group who want enforced conditions, and can't stand anyone disagreeing.



 
Last edited:
Yeah MS don't make it easy for you to do things other than their way. It gets old for sure, especially in a corporate environment where downtime costs $$$.
 
I think it is all tests for pushing their boundaries and each time they get away with it, it goes a little further next time (except in the case of windows 8 which they had to back up on). Physical media has been nearly wiped out in most all its forms. Is this random and uncontrolled or is it heading somewhere?
 
Physical media for software is largely wasteful. It's been a slow transition. Software used to come in huge boxes filled with floppy disks and large printed manuals. I remember installing Windows 3.1 from about 8 or so floppy disks :cool:. CD's replaced piles of floppies so the boxes got a bit smaller. PDF's replaced printed manuals, so the boxes got even smaller. DVD's replaced multiple CD's. Some companies toyed with shipping USB flash drives containing software but that never really caught on. One key thing is software development never really stops. There's always bug fixes, feature updates, compatibility fixes for new OS's etc. Having a physical copy of software limits you to an old version immediately. Software online can continuously be updated so users can always get the latest version. It also eliminates all of the cost that comes with physical production, packaging, warehousing, shipping, etc. It's been nearly a decade since I've bought software in a physical store. For a digital product, it just makes more sense to distribute it online. Music and eventually movies are largely going the same route.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom