[txmx2000]

You are driving down the interstate, message pops up saying it needs to refuel, you don't hit the button fast enough, your cars shuts off, and you spend the next 15 minutes parked in the middle of the road with cars honking behind you.

Or you wake up, get dressed for an important meeting, unlock your door, and suddenly realize you're going to be late because your car decided this was the best time to finish refueling in spite of your instructions to refuel at another time of day.

[setq]

This has never happened to me unless I've actively ignored it and I sit in front of a Windows PC for 12 hours a day and have done for 19 years.

[throwanem]

How nice for you! Having active hours be ignored, and the machine update itself in the middle of a workday, has happened more than once to me. (Once would be enough.) It's happened more than once to a lot of other people, too. How far do you expect to get with this argument by implication that that's not the case, and we're all just full of it?

[setq]

That only happens if you put the updates off of they've been there for a couple of days and you have something running that makes it assume that the machine is still active. People seeding torrents overnight seems to be the only place I see that not happen.

See update notifications? At the end of the day, restart and install the updates. It's not rocket science. It doesn't just hit patch Tuesday and then reboot immediately, shafting you. And it doesn't screw your workflow up.

Really this has to be done because even the best of us put it off eternally.

[throwanem]

> That only happens if [case that isn't the only one where this happens]

The whole point of active hours is that, when updates are pending, they install and the system reboots outside the hours in which I've expressed the desire to have my machine not reboot itself. Yet I've lost count of the number of times where this does not happen - I see an update notification, shrug and assume it'll be applied in the window I've set, and take no action - only to find the next day that the updates haven't been applied, the reboot hasn't been performed, and if I don't interrupt my work day by applying updates and rebooting immediately - which rarely takes less than 15 minutes, not counting getting all my tools up and going again - then I can rely on losing some work, and a lot of time, later on, when something important needs doing on a deadline. And that's insane! If for whatever reason the updates legitimately can't be applied in the window, the right action in response is to wait for the next window, and not to fuck-start my workday. That is always the wrong thing to do.

I mean, I get what you're saying, right? If active hours worked as claimed, you'd have a real point here. But they do not work reliably at all, and that's a whole 'nother issue.

[bigbugbag]

I have a friend that booted her computer to windows 7, logged into gmail and facebook, had to leave her computer to care for her little kid and came back to her computer in the middle of windows 10 installation. She had seen no warning whatsoever.

A client had started a time consuming process before leaving the office, came back the following morning with the process having failed due to windows applying updates and rebooting killing the process and losing a day worth of work.

YMMV.

I don't know what you mean by "this has to be done", there is no obligation to apply updates. What if I want my computer to run a windows without updates ? Am I not entitled to use my own property as I so choose ?

[setq]

I very much doubt she had no warning. You got two warnings and had to opt out. She probably just clicked through them. Check the event log and scheduler logs. It will have the event in there saying the user consented to it. I had to find this on a machine after a user complained it didn't tell him and it clearly did and he clicked through.

> I don't know what you mean by "this has to be done", there is no obligation to apply updates. What if I want my computer to run a windows without updates ? Am I not entitled to use my own property as I so choose ?

If your machine becomes a botnet node and causes problems for other people, which is a big problem, then you forfeit the right. The same thing if your apartment leaks water into another one. Be a good citizen.

Failed updates, now that's the only valid part of your point. I've had a few and they weren't disruptive but this is just my case.

[bigbugbag]

You can doubt but maybe direct the doubt at the ability of window to deliver a consistent experience across every machine and configuration. She's computer literate and know when she gets nagged by windows, at best it could have been that the warning came and went while she was not in front of the screen.

There was no event log or logs of any kind, her system got entirely replaced by win10. For this specific case I would tend to not trust the log anyways. What I do find strange is that the windows 10 installation process should have asked to accept the EULA before installing, it did not and went on as if it was an unattended installation.

Good luck trying to explain people that they have to forfeit their freedom because they have to behave like good citizen. Anyways windows update is barely relevant here as the common vector used for botnet infection is almost always the user, not windows vulnerability.

[rhodysurf]

Some people run complex simulations that take days or weeks to run, and a forced reboot in the middle ruins progress. If someone needs to skip an update on their own machine and their own network that is their right.

[setq]

This is an edge case for a very small percentage of users. Use GPMC to turn it off entirely or change the key at:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\WindowsUpdate\UX\Settings

Set DWORD IsActiveHoursEnabled to 0.

[cartoonfoxes]

I have no idea why this scenario gets talked about so little. It is an edge case, but its a huge edge-case. There are entire ecosystems of Windows-only software where running batch operations overnight are a daily fact of life.

I'm nearly resigned to the fact that I may have to segregate engineering workstations to their own network and whitelist their traffic.

IsActiveHoursEnabled is ignored.

[ZoFreX]

> If someone needs to skip an update on their own machine and their own network that is their right.

And if you want your machine to DDoS Playstation Network that's your right too, right?

And if I want my kid to get measles and spread it around, that's my right?

As much as you may argue it's your machine, and your right, sooner or later your choices start to impact other people. What about their rights, then?

[bigbugbag]

What is your point ? That microsoft should be better at security in the first place ? That Sony should refrain from playing stupid games to prevent winning stupid prizes ? That computer vulnerabilities are a contagious disease ?

Man you're in for an amazing time when you will learn about that stupidity called the Internet of Things.

[rhodysurf]

I'm not saying never update, I'm saying let me update (manually) when I am not in the middle of using my computer for work (which may be a week or two at a time). The OS should get out of the way, not ruin what I'm working on.

[bigbugbag]

Nice anecdotal evidence.

Mine is that this has never happened to me since I switched to different OSs than Microsoft's, circa windows XP.

[setq]

I use iOS and CentOS regularly. It doesn't happen either.

However the former has a different security model and the latter is mainly run by experts. The point is moot.