[moftz]

Unless you do development where a Windows patch could break a complex environment, most people in the workplace are always using all Microsoft products anyway so they should just be on auto-update. All it takes is for some IT manager to sit on a critical patch for too long. If auto-updates break your setup, then you could opt-out and be moved to a sandboxed environment where you still get patches but only after they are verified. I remember when some vcredist patch broke a very expensive development suite. Despite all the engineers affected complaining to IT, it took them weeks to roll it back for us. In the mean time, we had figured out ways to debug the tool with Visual Studio, catch the error, and continue past it without crashing everything. The patch must have broke quite a lot of things because there was another one that came shortly after that seemed to avoid the problems.

[wil421]

If you’re in a large organization you do not want an auto-update to mess up something for 10,000+ people who are unable to work because the VPN or whatever other enterprise system/software stopped working.

I’ve seen enough issues this year with Azure and multi-factor sso being down. It makes me weary of Microsoft’s updates. Lots of customers screaming because they can’t access our portals.

Sometimes your vendors have to wait for Microsoft to fix something they broke which complicates it even more.