Windows Update: a solution or a problem?

[Deleted member 178]

I always have it enabled, never encountered critical issues ; the worst ones i had are the suspended loop or a corrupted update, the fix was easy : reboot the computer.

Now, i obviously never update Windows when all my security softs are ON or other programs are opened, i turned off/close all of them while updating.

1 guy told me he installed them himself so they didn't break anything while the user was in charge.
Literally 19 told me they disabled Windows Update to avoid trouble, or to not bother the user.

And you wonder why Malware spread so easily...

 

[Syafiq]

Windows Update: a solution or a problem?
Hmm... not all of them(the updates) will cause a problem. I enabled it because i think updates are important to keep me safe

 

[509322]

The average Joe will choose reliability over security. Enterprises and governments choose reliability first. They keep on top of active exploits in the wild and apply the appropriate vulnerability patches released by Microsoft as required or disable\uninstall programs until a vulnerability patch is released or simply use alternate programs altogether.

The average Joe is not happy with Windows Updates. It's on the web.

That is not average Joe's fault, that is Microsoft's fault.

The average Joe is not a security soft geek.

The average Joe just wants their system to work without problems.

Windows 10 Updates in-place are not reliable enough; they regularly cause problems.

Clean install of Windows 10 Updates are reliable - but that is unreasonable burden on users.

The vast majority of security patches pushed via Windows Updates are PoC - and not actual in-the-wild exploit - patches. If there is an active in-the-wild exploit, the update should be applied immediately if it is available and should not be delayed. That's common sense. No one is recommending to delay the Windows Update under such circumstances.

The average Joe doesn't read IT security news.

The average Joe doesn't prioritize PC security.

The average Joe probably could care less about all of this, he just wants his system to work without problems.

The perception among a significant proportion of "normal" user land is that Windows Updates breaks stuff so they disable or delay Windows Updates if they can figure out how to do it.

This debate will never end.

 

[509322]

I delay Windows Updates, however my system security is not at risk. Why ?

Because the IT security news does a great job at proclaiming every in the wild Windows exploit at the next Windows Ebola outbreak and I regularly read the blown out of proportion reports.

If there is an active Windows exploit in the wild I check if my OS is vulnerable to it.

If it is, I check if my OS is configured such that it is vulnerable to it.

If it is, I check if there is a security update available via Microsoft Update that patches the vulnerability.

If there is, I apply that update.

If there isn't, I make system modifications to mitigate the vulnerability - if it is even required to do so at all. Typically, it might require disabling a feature - such as Flash temporarily until a patch is released or uninstalling a program temporarily. If a feature was never enabled in the first place, then I never had to worry about it in the first place and just move on and don't look back.

This is not difficult.

Don't over think it.

 

[plat1098]

This twangs a longstanding nerve. As more of an average Joe-ina, it boils down to: the computer is my property. Anecdotally: on an a few months' old, immaculately maintained and high specification machine, the Fall update was an unforeseen disaster. People's machines and livelihoods are expensive! How invasive and dictatorial is Microsoft in the future: making uber collaborations to streamline hardware specifications to facilitate its update deliveries? Other people's money may mean squat to Microsoft, but a dollar means something to me. I plan to retain these machines after the "arbitrary" three to five year deadline, right? It's also a psychological game: update or you're left out in the cold, poor you.

Microsoft painted itself into a gigantic corner. And if any superior one tells you "hey, you don't like it, move to another OS, " I'm prepared with the sharp instruments. I'm only partially joking. And yes, updates are enabled, I force them to get them over with. Like it or hate it, they're too often necessary--like medicine.

 

[gorblimey]

"No, i disable it to avoid issues"

Win7 HP SP1 x64. I do spruik the advantages of the latest Service Pack, and on W2K Pro SP4 I added Rollup 1... But endless streams of "Wait while I..." is not on.

The average Joe probably could care less about all of this, he just wants his system to work without problems.

+1. My biggest problem on W2K was VC Redistributables so late software would work, haven't needed to do that on this box yet. But I do have a few KBs installed to make life easier.

 

[509322]

+1. My biggest problem on W2K was VC Redistributables so late software would work, haven't needed to do that on this box yet. But I do have a few KBs installed to make life easier.

Ask the average Joe, who is trying to figure out why a particular program he just installed is throwing a *.dll error and without any guidance on what that error means and how to fix it, what his opinion And ask about his experience in finding and answer to fix his problem online.

I will bet he will reply he could care less about Windows Update.

All average Joe wants is for his program and his PC to work. Average Joe doesn't even realize that it is the program publisher that should have packaged the VC redistributable with the program installer.

 

[CMLew]

The average Joe on the street does not read MalwareTips and does not share the opinions of security soft geeks.

The average Joe thinks they are a "normal" person (whatever that means) and that Microsoft does things to their system that they did not ask for, they do not want, that breaks their stuff, that annoys them, and wants Microsoft to stop doing.

A lot of enterprises, admins and technicians (and 3rd party developers) think and feel this way too.

But Microsoft does not listen to anybody. Microsoft does what it wants.

Thats what a monopoly do.

 

[Brahman]

Microsoft should adopt the Ubuntu style updates to the home user. Let the user decide on updates, but force them to have a feature/ version update evry 3 or 4 years by not providing security updates to the earlier version. Peace of mind for at least 4 years.

 

[RoboMan]

Is there anything developers here have to say about updates regarding to their software? Do Windows Update regularly force you to send updates to your software to make it keep running smooth and without issues?

 

[Azure]

Is it actually the average Joe that are usually getting issues with Windows Update or is it people that like tweaking and disabling aspects of their OS like telemetry that encounter more issues?

Basically do people that frequent security forum more likely to encounter issues?

 

[Andy Ful]

Personally, I have not got any problems with Windows 10 updates/upgrades from about 2 years, probably because I do not use any other security than Windows built-in, and I use a pretty standard desktop PC.
It seems that Microsoft wants to make a kind of OS revolution with the unconscious help of home users.
It is impossible to make safely so many OS changes in such a short time. Delaying updates in the paid Windows versions is a smart move, because many problems with Windows Home can be patched in this time to avoid problems in the paid versions.
It is clear that giving Windows 10 for free is related to the above tactic. Microsoft is a corporation, that cares in the first place for the users who pay.
Should we blame Microsoft for this? I do not know. Should we blame the shark for killing a man in the ocean?
.
Edit
Of course, I delayed the updates (Windows 10 Pro).

 

[509322]

The smart move is delay updates for a month until Microsoft fixes their stuff but definitely apply the ones that are required if there are actively reported exploits in the wild. The system is not any more vulnerable to exploit by paying attention and applying updates this way.

Or you can just clean install the updates every time to avoid problems if you don't mind the inconvenience.

AppGuard does not run into problems with Windows updates typically. There are corner cases where individual updates will extract to the drive with the greatest available drive space, but that is not a Windows Update issue. That issue is the way that the individual update was designed and only affects systems with multiple drives. It is a very rare issue.

.NET Framework 4.7 was a problematic update that Microsoft released, pulled, and then released again. I don't think this update is fixed to this day. It wouldn't install on a few systems until our product was disabled. This also is a very rare issue.

 

[509322]

A user that prioritizes security should install all Windows Updates and be willing to sacrifice reliability over any bugs and inconveniences. That is just how it goes.

Average Joe thinks the opposite.

 

[Andy Ful]

The smart move is delay updates and apply the ones that are required if there are actively reported exploits in the wild. The system is not any more vulnerable to exploit by paying attention and applying updates this way.

That would be a smart move for the benefit of users, but not a smart move for the benefit of Microsoft.
Microsoft dropped this tactic, probably because it was too expensive for the corporation.

 

[509322]

Is it actually the average Joe that are usually getting issues with Windows Update or is it people that like tweaking and disabling aspects of their OS like telemetry that encounter more issues?

Basically do people that frequent security forum more likely to encounter issues?

I think it is across the full spectrum of users from n00b to the most advanced users and across the entire ecosystem. Windows Updates do not discriminate.

 

[JHomes]

If you do have issues and don't apply updates, it's likely because you're behind on updates; but updates can brick your system. So it's a lose-lose situation in my mind.

I get Rollback to take a snapshot, then if there's an issue I'll restore.

 

[509322]

That would be a smart move for the benefit of users, but not a smart move for the benefit of Microsoft.
Microsoft dropped this tactic, probably because it was too expensive for the corporation.

If they can do it for enterprises and governments and paying Pro users, then they can do it for everybody.

Stop using Windows 10 home user systems as guinea pigs !

Just my own personal thinking based upon my own personal observations of the pain and misery that forced Windows 10 updates causes some home users that want the option to delay updates.

Although, it is easy enough for the Windows 10 home user to just disable the Windows 10 update service, for whatever reason a lot of them have an incredibly difficult time with that concept. I don't know why. A simple OFF and ON .bat file will solve all their problems. I just think they are angry that they don't have the option in the Windows Settings GUI. As far I think "Who Cares !!!??? Solve the problem !! Beat Microsoft at its own game !!"

 

[509322]

This is a complex issue with no right nor wrong answer.

What is the practically correct answer for user X is not the practically correct answer for user Y.

To each his own for his own level of knowledge, experience and unique computing circumstances.

Since this is MalwareTips - a security forum promoting PC security - they are going want everybody to enable Windows Updates.

 

[Soulbound]

Despite my knowledge, all my home systems are on automatic update.systems that i dont actively maintain also didnt have any problem. and such systems are used and have what we consider regular user.

If i wanted to be picky, then yes i would use windows offline updater but its only used when I am maintaining other systems outside my household.