Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kasabali 54 days ago
> We’ve also made changes to the Power menu so you’ll always see the standard Restart and Shut down options without having to install a pending update first. You decide when updates happen, not the other way around.

Great! We've progressed back to Windows XP of 22 years ago.

4 comments

Great, this is actual progress. Now it would be amazing if "Update and Shut Down" would actually update and shut down, instead of doing so like 50% of the time with the other 50% just updating and restarting with an actual shut down. (This is on various very diverse machines so I'm rather sure is common, and not just an interaction with a particular machine).

It's baffling that a company like MS can leave this kind of obvious problems lingering for months.

They recently acknowledged and fixed this issue. I can personally confirm it hasn't happened to me since the update.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-fixes-update-and-shut-d...

Great to know. I would say that it happened to me more recently but it may have been in machines that had been unused for some months and ran an old version.

According to the link, it "only" took them 5 years to solve the bug. Better late than ever though, I guess :)

This behaviour really trumped me when I was working on a friends Windows-11 PC on the new year. My Family Big-Home PC (> a decade old) still has Win-10 since it cannot upgrade, so I was confused at WTF was happening. I could not believe Microsoft had actually broken this.
For me it never updates and shutdown. It always just updates and restarts.
> You decide when updates happen, not the other way around.

What's the other way around? "Updates decide when you happen"?

Sounds like part of a Yakov Smirnoff joke.

Updates decide when your work happens.
Microsoft doesn't allow its users even to reboot the computer without permission?
It only shows "Update and shut down" (which is a lie as it still will reboot) or "Update and reboot.

I think all this was a response to severely outdated Windows machines being infected with worms and what not. Microsoft got bad press for this and went (way) overboard with trying to force users to install updates as soon as released.

I wonder whether it has to do with the actual installation being in progress in the background. There is probably a time window in some updates where an interruption leaves the OS in a bad state.
That doesn't justify it because the user should still be able to decide when to initiate it. People are ok with not interrupting the update if they get to choose when it starts.
I hope a miracle happens and it keeps progressing until we have Windows XP 2.