Why won't my computer(windows 10) stop trying to do some freaky update?

[Togath]

So I have a windows 10 computer, and for the last many months, it has never tried to update, as I disabled windows update. All of a sudden, starting yesterday, it's trying to force some "fall creators" update on me despite me having windows update disabled. Help! I'm panicking like crazy and DO NOT want ANY updates.

[137beth]

Updates are why I abandoned WIndows. There is no way to completely disable updates on Windows 10 home or pro. You can do it on Enterprise, but that costs an awful lot more. If you are an individual user, there is no way to get it to stop installing updates except to switch to another operating system. If you don't want to switch operating systems, you're stuck with installing updates when Microsoft tells you too.


A coworker of mine said that WIndows Update is like ransomware. Microsoft has the power to render your computer unusable at any time (since in Windows you can't use the computer while updates are being installed, unlike in Linux). But if you pay Microsoft a lot of extra money, they promise they won't install updates without your consent. They still could if they wanted to, but you just have to believe they won't make your computer unusable if you pay them a ransom.

Of course, the counterargument is that updates on Windows can have actual benefits to the user (not always, but it's possible), which ransomware usually doesn't.

[Silfir]

The only long-term-viable alternative to letting Windows 10 update itself - security updates, if nothing else - is to switch to another operating system entirely.

[gomipile]

I could assume you've seen this already, but I'll link it here in case someone reading this hasn't:
https://www.computerworld.com/articl...nstalling.html

[Togath]

I could assume you've seen this already, but I'll link it here in case someone reading this hasn't:
https://www.computerworld.com/articl...nstalling.html

Ended up providing a solution that seems to work. also way calmer than earlier. Trying to deal with tech issues while just waking up is rough.
I really do wonder why Microsoft pushes automatic updates rather than just by default notifying you when there are updates and asking if you want them or not.

[Mando Knight]

I really do wonder why Microsoft pushes automatic updates rather than just by default notifying you when there are updates and asking if you want them or not.

Honestly? Because of the people who ignore or refuse updating. "No, I don't want to update" is nothing but a security hazard and a headache to Microsoft, more so (in their estimation) than botched patches are. By Microsoft's estimation, most users don't have the technical expertise nor critical use cases where giving them full access to changing update behavior is useful, and so to them the feature is not desirable for the Home edition.

In other words, Microsoft thinks of users who don't want to update as being roughly the same category of people as children who won't eat vegetables or parents who won't let their children get vaccinated.

[Sermil]

I really do wonder why Microsoft pushes automatic updates rather than just by default notifying you when there are updates and asking if you want them or not.

Because too many people never install the updates and then get hit by viruses exploiting issues that were fixed months ago.

Because people get their computers infected with multiple viruses and then blame Microsoft for making an unstable operating system.

[AlexBlade]

Honestly? Because of the people who ignore or refuse updating. "No, I don't want to update" is nothing but a security hazard and a headache to Microsoft, more so (in their estimation) than botched patches are. By Microsoft's estimation, most users don't have the technical expertise nor critical use cases where giving them full access to changing update behavior is useful, and so to them the feature is not desirable for the Home edition.

In other words, Microsoft thinks of users who don't want to update as being roughly the same category of people as children who won't eat vegetables or parents who won't let their children get vaccinated.

Microsoft should improve the product and stop annoying with their updates. To tell the truth, updates is not the worst... Viruses is my headache...

[factotum]

Microsoft should improve the product and stop annoying with their updates.

Um, how are they supposed to improve the product without updating it? I'm interested to hear how they can perform that particular trick.

[Togath]

So grr... computer seems to be half trying to update again. I have set my connection as metered too which might delay it?
Would unisntalling either/both "windows update" programs here help?

I'd rather have no updates ever than... well, updates ever.

[Bavarian itP]

Honestly? Because of the people who ignore or refuse updating. "No, I don't want to update" is nothing but a security hazard and a headache to Microsoft, more so (in their estimation) than botched patches are. By Microsoft's estimation, most users don't have the technical expertise nor critical use cases where giving them full access to changing update behavior is useful, and so to them the feature is not desirable for the Home edition.

In other words, Microsoft thinks of users who don't want to update as being roughly the same category of people as children who won't eat vegetables or parents who won't let their children get vaccinated.

At least anti-vaccinaters don't blame the pharma companies when they actually get the disease.

[lesser_minion]

Microsoft should improve the product and stop annoying with their updates. To tell the truth, updates is not the worst... Viruses is my headache...

Most malware targeted at home users relies either on social engineering, on exploits that had been patched before the malware itself was even written, or some combination of both. No software can particularly defend against social engineering, and releasing a patch for an exploit only works if users actually apply it. I presume that Microsoft would rather annoy people once a month than risk being blamed for large numbers of people getting pwned.

If you're suggesting that they should just make software that doesn't need updating, well, at present, that's not something we can do: it's easier to summon delicious pizza out of thin air than it is to make a completely bug-free piece of software.

And the reason you can't use your machine and have to endure a bunch of restarts is that this ensures that the updates actually get applied. There's a lot of code shared between programs, and if you want to avoid restarts, you end up with a half-upgraded system with a mix of old and new binaries floating around in memory. You're much less likely to install Windows software via an app store or package manager compared with Mac OS or Linux, which makes it a lot harder to sort this sort of thing out without creating more issues -- additionally, higher market share and large number of less-technical users means that there are a lot more security threats out there for Windows machines, which means that they see more security and stability updates that have to be applied straight away.

At least anti-vaccinaters don't blame the pharma companies when they actually get the disease.

They certainly don't blame themselves. A lot of the anti-vaccination movement is based on pseudoscience and conspiracy -- they're not just overestimating risks.

[snowblizz]

So grr... computer seems to be half trying to update again. I have set my connection as metered too which might delay it?
Would unisntalling either/both "windows update" programs here help?

I'd rather have no updates ever than... well, updates ever.

You can't uninstall the Windows Updates most probably it's a very deep core component.

Also, please stop using Windows and becoming hazard to the rest of the world ok?

Stubbornly refusing to update Windows will lead you down a this very rabbithole. It will only get worse.

Get with the program or get off the bus, in short. There's no benefits to be had by trying to avoid the updates.

I once sat with a friend for 3 hours trying to get a new game working and it turned out his insistence on not installing the updates for Windows was the reason. The game lacked a critical component. The guy works as IT support. Stop making my life worse and just do the updates.

At least anti-vaccinaters don't blame the pharma companies when they actually get the disease.

You can bet your life they do. It's Big Pharma that invented the diseases to sell vaccines after all. Before the military industrial coplex invented Big Pharma in the 1950s noone got diseases. The truth is out there.
(text may need a bluer sarcasm font that software provides me with.)

Because too many people never install the updates and then get hit by viruses exploiting issues that were fixed months ago.

Because people get their computers infected with multiple viruses and then blame Microsoft for making an unstable operating system.

The recent kerfuffle with ransomware targeted computers that had not been updated properly. Win7 or XP computers wasn't it? (Though I seem to recall something with another Win10 version) And who gets blamed? Microsoft. I'm not a fan, but seriously, you are several OS generations behind, get updating and upgrade. This is what being a hold-out gets you.

[AlexBlade]

Most malware targeted at home users relies either on social engineering, on exploits that had been patched before the malware itself was even written, or some combination of both. No software can particularly defend against social engineering, and releasing a patch for an exploit only works if users actually apply it. I presume that Microsoft would rather annoy people once a month than risk being blamed for large numbers of people getting pwned.

If you're suggesting that they should just make software that doesn't need updating, well, at present, that's not something we can do: it's easier to summon delicious pizza out of thin air than it is to make a completely bug-free piece of software.

And the reason you can't use your machine and have to endure a bunch of restarts is that this ensures that the updates actually get applied. There's a lot of code shared between programs, and if you want to avoid restarts, you end up with a half-upgraded system with a mix of old and new binaries floating around in memory. You're much less likely to install Windows software via an app store or package manager compared with Mac OS or Linux, which makes it a lot harder to sort this sort of thing out without creating more issues -- additionally, higher market share and large number of less-technical users means that there are a lot more security threats out there for Windows machines, which means that they see more security and stability updates that have to be applied straight away.



They certainly don't blame themselves. A lot of the anti-vaccination movement is based on pseudoscience and conspiracy -- they're not just overestimating risks.

I agree with you but the fact is that people create new viruses for Windows system and updates can do nothing with it.

[Iruka]

I'd rather have no updates ever than... well, updates ever.

Out of couriosity, what is the reason for that?

[Togath]

Out of couriosity, what is the reason for that?

I strongly prefer control and a lack of change when it comes to computers, at any cost.
Luckily... so far having three safe guards in place seems to be preventing microsoft forcing updates on me yet, even despite my computer saying it was updating when I turned it on, no new files were installed.
Still, surely there's some third party program/some way to just outright break windows update, right?

[Gnoman]

Ransomware makers probably have made several. People like you are their primary revenue source, after all.

[Togath]

Sorry for my anger and frustration and such...
I guess I... I guess I just don't understand why using an outdated windows 10 is different from using windows 7 or 8.

[Gnoman]

Because Windows 7 and 8 are still updated. A fully-updated version of Windows 7 is many thousands of times more secure than an un-updated Windows 10. This is because the vast majority of vulnerabilities in an operating system are only possible to find "in the wild", by the vast legions of cybercriminals who make their living by developing programs specifically to bypass the security of widespread operating systems. Microsoft very often finds out about these vulnerabilities by analyzing suspicious traffic (from people testing their new exploit) or communicating with "white hat" hackers (who spend their time finding such exploits in order to identify threats), and includes the necessary fix in their regularly scheduled update before it becomes a problem. Then people who refuse to update get hacked and blame Microsoft for their own stupidity.

Not updating your Windows is the cyber equivalent of playing in a pit of bubonic plague and then spitting on everybody you pass.

[JeenLeen]

Would one's computer be safe from updates if you didn't have the internet?

I'm asking in part because I reckon being completely disconnected from the internet may achieve the OP's goals, but probably at a cost (no internet) that is undesirable.
I'm also asking because I'm considering dropping internet at my house, and I wonder if it'd freeze up my computer for uses I currently have on it (Word, Excel, a few video games I have installed that don't require internet access.) I just did that big Windows update I think the OP is mentioning.

[Gnoman]

No internet connection means that the biggest attack vector is gone. You'd still run into the potential risk of infected documents or dodgy software brought in (by you_ via USB stick or similar, and when you did wind up connecting, there would be a lot of updates to go through, but problems would be minimal during the no-internet time unless you have subscription-based or internet dependent software.

[Tvtyrant]

No internet connection means that the biggest attack vector is gone. You'd still run into the potential risk of infected documents or dodgy software brought in (by you_ via USB stick or similar, and when you did wind up connecting, there would be a lot of updates to go through, but problems would be minimal during the no-internet time unless you have subscription-based or internet dependent software.

Proof: My grandparent's Apple II still runs fine. It is used everyday for solitare, and hasn't been hooked to the internet since 1999.

[137beth]

Proof: My grandparent's Apple II still runs fine. It is used everyday for solitare, and hasn't been hooked to the internet since 1999.

My NES and original Gameboy are still up and running at 60 FPS.

[Togath]

Because Windows 7 and 8 are still updated. A fully-updated version of Windows 7 is many thousands of times more secure than an un-updated Windows 10. This is because the vast majority of vulnerabilities in an operating system are only possible to find "in the wild", by the vast legions of cybercriminals who make their living by developing programs specifically to bypass the security of widespread operating systems. Microsoft very often finds out about these vulnerabilities by analyzing suspicious traffic (from people testing their new exploit) or communicating with "white hat" hackers (who spend their time finding such exploits in order to identify threats), and includes the necessary fix in their regularly scheduled update before it becomes a problem. Then people who refuse to update get hacked and blame Microsoft for their own stupidity.

Not updating your Windows is the cyber equivalent of playing in a pit of bubonic plague and then spitting on everybody you pass.

Wait, Windows 7 and 8 get security updates still?

[Gnoman]

Wait, Windows 7 and 8 get security updates still?

Windows 7 "extended" support (security patches only, no feature updates) extends until 2020. Mainstream support (security and feature updates) extends until January 2018, with extended support extending until 2023.

[georgie_leech]

Windows 7 "extended" support (security patches only, no feature updates) extends until 2020. Mainstream support (security and feature updates) extends until January 2018, with extended support extending until 2023.

In addition, remember the kerfuffle around dropping support for Windows XP? Dropping support for an old OS isn't something that happens immediately after the release of a new version (yet), thankfully. It's a relatively big deal that tends to get a decent amount of attention in the media.

[Togath]

Ransomware makers probably have made several.

Still, there's probably a safe version somewhere, no?

[Silfir]

Still, there's probably a safe version somewhere, no?

Humans write software, and humans are fallible. So no, there's no such thing as 100% safe.

But if you're asking about the least unsafe version, that's easy. It's the one that isn't being deliberately sabotaged to prevent it from updating itself.

[Mando Knight]

Still, there's probably a safe version somewhere, no?

The point he was getting at is there isn't: breaking Windows Update inherently poses a security risk (since most updates include security patches as well as bugfixes). Intentionally breaking Windows Update with the idea that you then won't have to update ever again is a similar concept to disconnecting your car's diagnostic computer so you don't have to take it in for maintenance ever again: by the time you notice something is wrong, the problem has developed beyond a simple fix.

[Gnoman]

Still, there's probably a safe version somewhere, no?

Any such tools will contain no malicious payload. They don't have to, because breaking Windows Update and connecting to the Internet is like ripping out your front door so you don't have to turn a handle to come in. The contractor you hire to do it doesn't need to do anything while he's there - he can just walk in later and rob you blind.


Disabling. Windows. Update. Is. A. Fundamentally. Stupid. Thing. To. Do.