info
Google Groupes n'accepte plus les nouveaux posts ni abonnements Usenet. Les contenus de l'historique resteront visibles.
Dismiss
On the Bogosity of Windoze Update
8 vues
Accéder directement au premier message non lu
Nadegda
22 févr. 2020, 20:04:4622/02/2020
à
Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
I won't pretend to know the nitty gritty details of what goes on under the
hood when it is actually installing the updates; fortunately, I don't have
to, because it proves its brokenness even before it gets to that point.
You see, the *downloader* in it is terrible in its own right.
Last time I installed a batch of Patch Tuesday updates, they weighed in at
a hefty 400 MB. I will note that this seems likely to be inefficient --
surely a few bug fixes can be encoded in a much smaller data size than
this? -- but I will provisionally stipulate to the size being somehow
necessary, because I can still easily prove my case.
From the time it first displayed "Downloading", along with the total
volume of data (400 MB) and a bare percentage complete (initially 0%),
until it ceased to be "Downloading" and began "Preparing to install", took
58 minutes. That works out to an average download speed of just over 120KB/
s. This is already a mild indictment of, at least, Microsoft's server
infrastructure -- surely they can provide a higher speed than that to the
end-user? I had waited, as is prudent, some days past Patch Tuesday to let
others be the sucker unpaid beta-testers and trip over the bugs, so the
peak of download traffic would have been long done. I could see even
Microsoft being challenged to deliver decent throughput to literally
billions of simultaneous downloaders, but it should have been down to a
few thousand by the time I jumped into the fray, and still I got speeds
that would make a cruddy rural DSL provider hang its head in shame, and I
have fiber to my door.
But this isn't the half of it. That 120KB/s is the *average*. You might
think the throughput would have been fairly steady ... totally not.
Although the Windoze Update tool itself only displayed one updating
metric, an integer percentage-done, from the start to the end of the
downloading process, I could glean other information from tools like
ProcessExplorer, and I could note times and percentages down as well. What
I saw was throughput fluctuating over about FIVE orders of magnitude, from
triple that 120KB/s to almost undetectably small. For instance, to get
from 30% to 35% took seven minutes (about 50KB/s), to get from 35% to 40%
took only three (over 100), and for a while after that it climbed at just
over one percent per minute (70KB/s). That seems reasonable, especially if
other apps were grabbing bandwidth here and there (well ... not on fiber),
but nearly the entire jump from 30 to 35% happened in the last *single*
minute of the seven-minute period. It stayed at 30 for over six minutes,
then got the next five percent in a matter of seconds. The highest
throughput was likely well over 300KB/s, and the lowest down in the bps
range.
Process Explorer corroborated this. There were long intervals with total
(system-wide) network I/O so low as to read as zero, during the download,
as well as showing no significant disk I/O.
It's not just network use that's inefficient. The downloader seems to
involve an inordinate number of processes and consume an inordinate number
of CPU cycles. I saw spikes of CPU activity (typically saturating one
core) from all of the following during the download: wuauclt.exe, System,
TrustedInstaller.exe, *and* the svchost.exe instance with "Windows Update"
listed as among the services it hosts, at varied times.
When Firefox downloads 400 MB of files, by contrast, it consumes a fairly
steady bandwidth, which never drops anywhere near as low as literally-
vanishingly-small as displayed by Process Explorer until the download is
done, and its CPU consumption is steady and quite low, though higher than
when it is idle. Unsurprising since downloading is an I/O-bound task.
Adding insult to injury, when all the updates and reboots were done,
Windoze soon started showing *another* new "important" update, albeit only
9MB in size, even though as previously noted it was not Patch Tuesday
anymore. If this update was part of the Patch Tuesday batch why didn't it
get it with the other 400 MB of updates? If it was new in those few
minutes why was it released outside of the usual patching cycle?
This file stayed at "Downloading ... 0%" for eleven minutes before the
number changed to one percent. It was a measly 9 megabytes. Assuming,
conservatively, that the percentage rounds down rather than to nearest, so
it still displays zero all the way through 0.99%, that means it took 11
minutes to get the first 94KB of the file. It averages to just under 8600
bytes per minute. 143 baud.
I had acoustic modems that were twice that fast in the nineteen-freaking-
SEVENTIES. The sort that actually cupped a telephone handset rather than
plugging directly into the phone line.
143 baud, for 11 minutes, after which fortunately it sped up considerably,
averaging a hundred or so KB/s for the remaining 99% of the file.
143 FUCKING BAUD.
WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
If you liken a decent, purpose-designed download tool (sftp) to quicksort,
and Firefox's downloader (HTTP, so distinctly suboptimal to (s)ftp) to
mergesort, whatever the fuck Microsoft has implemented under the hood is
not, as you might expect, bubble sort. There is simply no conceivable
excuse for lengthy periods of sub-1KB/s download speeds from an
organization deep-pocketed enough to buy a private continent and pave it
with data centers, nor for any professional programmer to produce software
with such a wacky fluctuating pattern of moving CPU use during what should
be a very fine-grainedly-repetitive task of get a byte from a socket, put
a byte on the disk, get a byte from a socket ... for forty-odd minutes.
No, Microsoft's Windoze Update downloader is the bogo-sort of download
tools. And it's hard to conceive of it being that way in any other fashion
than on purpose. The real question is: how does Microsoft benefit from
making updating deliberately slow and inefficient? Kickbacks from Intel
and system builders? ISPs? It's not captive-audience advertising: this was
the updater in an old Win8.1 box, from before Microsoft decided to turn
Windoze into slimy adware.
Meanwhile, all my linux boxen apt-get their updates at steady and nicely-
high throughputs, with steady low CPU use, comparable to sftp, or at least
to Firefox.
Viva la open source!
--
FNVWe Nadegda
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
% <per...@gmail.com> admits he has erectile dysfunction:
<cue8up....@news.alt.net>
I won't pretend to know the nitty gritty details of what goes on under the
hood when it is actually installing the updates; fortunately, I don't have
to, because it proves its brokenness even before it gets to that point.
You see, the *downloader* in it is terrible in its own right.
Last time I installed a batch of Patch Tuesday updates, they weighed in at
a hefty 400 MB. I will note that this seems likely to be inefficient --
surely a few bug fixes can be encoded in a much smaller data size than
this? -- but I will provisionally stipulate to the size being somehow
necessary, because I can still easily prove my case.
From the time it first displayed "Downloading", along with the total
volume of data (400 MB) and a bare percentage complete (initially 0%),
until it ceased to be "Downloading" and began "Preparing to install", took
58 minutes. That works out to an average download speed of just over 120KB/
s. This is already a mild indictment of, at least, Microsoft's server
infrastructure -- surely they can provide a higher speed than that to the
end-user? I had waited, as is prudent, some days past Patch Tuesday to let
others be the sucker unpaid beta-testers and trip over the bugs, so the
peak of download traffic would have been long done. I could see even
Microsoft being challenged to deliver decent throughput to literally
billions of simultaneous downloaders, but it should have been down to a
few thousand by the time I jumped into the fray, and still I got speeds
that would make a cruddy rural DSL provider hang its head in shame, and I
have fiber to my door.
But this isn't the half of it. That 120KB/s is the *average*. You might
think the throughput would have been fairly steady ... totally not.
Although the Windoze Update tool itself only displayed one updating
metric, an integer percentage-done, from the start to the end of the
downloading process, I could glean other information from tools like
ProcessExplorer, and I could note times and percentages down as well. What
I saw was throughput fluctuating over about FIVE orders of magnitude, from
triple that 120KB/s to almost undetectably small. For instance, to get
from 30% to 35% took seven minutes (about 50KB/s), to get from 35% to 40%
took only three (over 100), and for a while after that it climbed at just
over one percent per minute (70KB/s). That seems reasonable, especially if
other apps were grabbing bandwidth here and there (well ... not on fiber),
but nearly the entire jump from 30 to 35% happened in the last *single*
minute of the seven-minute period. It stayed at 30 for over six minutes,
then got the next five percent in a matter of seconds. The highest
throughput was likely well over 300KB/s, and the lowest down in the bps
range.
Process Explorer corroborated this. There were long intervals with total
(system-wide) network I/O so low as to read as zero, during the download,
as well as showing no significant disk I/O.
It's not just network use that's inefficient. The downloader seems to
involve an inordinate number of processes and consume an inordinate number
of CPU cycles. I saw spikes of CPU activity (typically saturating one
core) from all of the following during the download: wuauclt.exe, System,
TrustedInstaller.exe, *and* the svchost.exe instance with "Windows Update"
listed as among the services it hosts, at varied times.
When Firefox downloads 400 MB of files, by contrast, it consumes a fairly
steady bandwidth, which never drops anywhere near as low as literally-
vanishingly-small as displayed by Process Explorer until the download is
done, and its CPU consumption is steady and quite low, though higher than
when it is idle. Unsurprising since downloading is an I/O-bound task.
Adding insult to injury, when all the updates and reboots were done,
Windoze soon started showing *another* new "important" update, albeit only
9MB in size, even though as previously noted it was not Patch Tuesday
anymore. If this update was part of the Patch Tuesday batch why didn't it
get it with the other 400 MB of updates? If it was new in those few
minutes why was it released outside of the usual patching cycle?
This file stayed at "Downloading ... 0%" for eleven minutes before the
number changed to one percent. It was a measly 9 megabytes. Assuming,
conservatively, that the percentage rounds down rather than to nearest, so
it still displays zero all the way through 0.99%, that means it took 11
minutes to get the first 94KB of the file. It averages to just under 8600
bytes per minute. 143 baud.
I had acoustic modems that were twice that fast in the nineteen-freaking-
SEVENTIES. The sort that actually cupped a telephone handset rather than
plugging directly into the phone line.
143 baud, for 11 minutes, after which fortunately it sped up considerably,
averaging a hundred or so KB/s for the remaining 99% of the file.
143 FUCKING BAUD.
WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
If you liken a decent, purpose-designed download tool (sftp) to quicksort,
and Firefox's downloader (HTTP, so distinctly suboptimal to (s)ftp) to
mergesort, whatever the fuck Microsoft has implemented under the hood is
not, as you might expect, bubble sort. There is simply no conceivable
excuse for lengthy periods of sub-1KB/s download speeds from an
organization deep-pocketed enough to buy a private continent and pave it
with data centers, nor for any professional programmer to produce software
with such a wacky fluctuating pattern of moving CPU use during what should
be a very fine-grainedly-repetitive task of get a byte from a socket, put
a byte on the disk, get a byte from a socket ... for forty-odd minutes.
No, Microsoft's Windoze Update downloader is the bogo-sort of download
tools. And it's hard to conceive of it being that way in any other fashion
than on purpose. The real question is: how does Microsoft benefit from
making updating deliberately slow and inefficient? Kickbacks from Intel
and system builders? ISPs? It's not captive-audience advertising: this was
the updater in an old Win8.1 box, from before Microsoft decided to turn
Windoze into slimy adware.
Meanwhile, all my linux boxen apt-get their updates at steady and nicely-
high throughputs, with steady low CPU use, comparable to sftp, or at least
to Firefox.
Viva la open source!
--
FNVWe Nadegda
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
% <per...@gmail.com> admits he has erectile dysfunction:
<cue8up....@news.alt.net>
"Sir Hømer Hall, Esq."
22 févr. 2020, 20:57:3622/02/2020
à
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
<trimmed to end>
>Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
I agree. Windows update if a terribly inefficient mess.
Thankfully, there is a work around which is to set Windows
updates to download only over wifi and designate your
Internet connection as a metered connection. All you
will end up with is nags saying Windows Update was
unable to download updates.
I have found that Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 work
just fine without any stupid updates. Interestingly,
the Windows Defender updates (definitions) are small
and update fast using very little data. I do allow those.
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregøry
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only
the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to
teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
--Henry David Thoreau
Checkmate
22 févr. 2020, 22:04:1122/02/2020
à
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC) Nadegda put forth the
following notion, which was duly noted and recorded:
I didn't bother to read that much of your frothy foamage, but it's obvious
you downgraded to Windows 10, so you got what you deserve. Do you have
any idea how many smart people like me have decided to stay with Win 7?
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2020
all rights reserved
https://youtu.be/wT-8Dm1VThc
***************************************************
"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as
kensi." -Nadegda
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$2...@dont-email.me>
***************************************************
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Checkmate.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC) Nadegda put forth the
following notion, which was duly noted and recorded:
you downgraded to Windows 10, so you got what you deserve. Do you have
any idea how many smart people like me have decided to stay with Win 7?
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2020
all rights reserved
https://youtu.be/wT-8Dm1VThc
***************************************************
"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as
kensi." -Nadegda
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$2...@dont-email.me>
***************************************************
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
kensi
22 févr. 2020, 23:30:3522/02/2020
à
On 2/22/2020 8:04 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> 143 FUCKING BAUD.
>
> WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
o.O
> 143 FUCKING BAUD.
>
> WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
I'd wonder if your fiber was working, but I'm assuming that you thought
of that and tested it in some way.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
kensi
22 févr. 2020, 23:34:4922/02/2020
à
On 2/22/2020 10:04 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC) Nadegda put forth the
> following notion, which was duly noted and recorded:
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC) Nadegda put forth the
> following notion, which was duly noted and recorded:
>
>> and system builders? ISPs? It's not captive-audience advertising: this was
>> the updater in an old Win8.1 box, from before Microsoft decided to turn
>> Windoze into slimy adware.
>
>> the updater in an old Win8.1 box, from before Microsoft decided to turn
>> Windoze into slimy adware.
>
> I didn't bother to read that much of your frothy foamage,
And it shows.
> but it's obvious you downgraded to Windows 10,
made a particularly stupid, embarrassing, and *avoidable* mistake in
front of thousands of screaming fans.
Enjoy your short-lived notoriety as an illiterate ignoramus, k0Ok.
*snicker*
> Do you have any idea how many smart people like me have decided to
> stay with Win 7?
security fixes, as of last month or so, right? So Nadegda will be
putting up with slow and balky updates while you're scrounging together
three thousand bucks worth of bitcoin to pay some Russian hacker for
your own data back?
That would be award-worthy I'm thinking, were it to happen. Maybe the
Special Ops Cody would be applicable, or at least a garden-variety LMA?
*snicker*
Paul
23 févr. 2020, 00:51:3123/02/2020
à
Nadegda wrote:
> Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
>
> I won't pretend to know the nitty gritty details of what goes on under the
> hood when it is actually installing the updates; fortunately, I don't have
> to, because it proves its brokenness even before it gets to that point.
>
> You see, the *downloader* in it is terrible in its own right.
>
> Last time I installed a batch of Patch Tuesday updates, they weighed in at
> a hefty 400 MB. I will note that this seems likely to be inefficient --
> surely a few bug fixes can be encoded in a much smaller data size than
> this? -- but I will provisionally stipulate to the size being somehow
> necessary, because I can still easily prove my case.
>
There's no point going into the implementation.
> Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
>
> I won't pretend to know the nitty gritty details of what goes on under the
> hood when it is actually installing the updates; fortunately, I don't have
> to, because it proves its brokenness even before it gets to that point.
>
> You see, the *downloader* in it is terrible in its own right.
>
> Last time I installed a batch of Patch Tuesday updates, they weighed in at
> a hefty 400 MB. I will note that this seems likely to be inefficient --
> surely a few bug fixes can be encoded in a much smaller data size than
> this? -- but I will provisionally stipulate to the size being somehow
> necessary, because I can still easily prove my case.
>
I don't think anyone cares.
I'll mention instead, that there was a second way you
could have done it.
1) Get the KB number. The KB1234567 thingy.
2) Go to catalog.update.microsoft.com, and search for
KB1234567 Windows 7
As you become more proficient at those searches, you can
trim down the size of the returned list.
3) There is a "Download" or an "Add to Basket" button on the right.
4) The Download is done through the BITS subsystem, at the link rate.
To test how fast your connection to Microsoft is, why not test that ?
1) Go to Windows Update.
2) Look for the History link on the left.
Review your history.
Find the Cumulative you just installed.
3) Go to catalog.update.microsoft.com
Search for the item.
4) Click the download.
Measure the transfer speed using your usual methods.
Then tell us whether the transfer was done at 300 baud or not.
Paul
Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛
23 févr. 2020, 03:25:1823/02/2020
à
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 19:04:05 -0800, LO AND BEHOLD; The Pathetic
Anti-Muslim Wannabe Homegrown Terrorist Posting as "💩
<More.Bul...@gmail.com>" determined that the following was of
great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<cupfkc....@news.alt.net>:
🐸Warning!AlwayswearANSIapprovedsafetygoggleswhenreadingpostsby
🐸💩.
🐸
🐸OnSun,23Feb202001:04:45-0000(UTC)Nadegdaputforththe
🐸followingnotion,whichwasdulynotedandrecorded:
🐸
🐸
🐸🐸WindozeUpdateishorriblymisdesigned,andIhaveproof.Iwon't
🐸🐸pretendtoknowthenittygrittydetailsofwhatgoesonunderthehood
🐸🐸whenitisactuallyinstallingtheupdates;fortunately,Idon'thave
🐸🐸to,becauseitprovesitsbrokennessevenbeforeitgetstothatpoint.
🐸🐸Yousee,the*downloader*initisterribleinitsownright.Lasttime
🐸🐸IinstalledabatchofPatchTuesdayupdates,theyweighedinata
🐸🐸hefty400MB.Iwillnotethatthisseemslikelytobeinefficient--
🐸🐸surelyafewbugfixescanbeencodedinamuchsmallerdatasizethan
🐸🐸this?--butIwillprovisionallystipulatetothesizebeingsomehow
🐸🐸necessary,becauseIcanstilleasilyprovemycase.Fromthetimeit
🐸🐸firstdisplayed"Downloading",alongwiththetotalvolumeofdata(400
🐸🐸MB)andabarepercentagecomplete(initially0%),untilitceasedto
🐸🐸be"Downloading"andbegan"Preparingtoinstall",took58minutes.
🐸🐸Thatworksouttoanaveragedownloadspeedofjustover120KB/s.This
🐸🐸isalreadyamildindictmentof,atleast,Microsoft'sserver
🐸🐸infrastructure--surelytheycanprovideahigherspeedthanthatto
🐸🐸theend-user?Ihadwaited,asisprudent,somedayspastPatchTuesday
🐸🐸toletothersbethesuckerunpaidbeta-testersandtripoverthebugs,
🐸🐸sothepeakofdownloadtrafficwouldhavebeenlongdone.Icouldsee
🐸🐸evenMicrosoftbeingchallengedtodeliverdecentthroughputto
🐸🐸literallybillionsofsimultaneousdownloaders,butitshouldhavebeen
🐸🐸downtoafewthousandbythetimeIjumpedintothefray,andstillI
🐸🐸gotspeedsthatwouldmakeacruddyruralDSLproviderhangitsheadin
🐸🐸shame,andIhavefibertomydoor.Butthisisn'tthehalfofit.That
🐸🐸120KB/sisthe*average*.Youmightthinkthethroughputwouldhavebeen
🐸🐸fairlysteady...totallynot.AlthoughtheWindozeUpdatetoolitself
🐸🐸onlydisplayedoneupdatingmetric,anintegerpercentage-done,fromthe
🐸🐸starttotheendofthedownloadingprocess,Icouldgleanother
🐸🐸informationfromtoolslikeProcessExplorer,andIcouldnotetimesand
🐸🐸percentagesdownaswell.WhatIsawwasthroughputfluctuatingover
🐸🐸aboutFIVEordersofmagnitude,fromtriplethat120KB/stoalmost
🐸🐸undetectablysmall.Forinstance,togetfrom30%to35%tookseven
🐸🐸minutes(about50KB/s),togetfrom35%to40%tookonlythree(over
🐸🐸100),andforawhileafterthatitclimbedatjustoveronepercent
🐸🐸perminute(70KB/s).Thatseemsreasonable,especiallyifotherapps
🐸🐸weregrabbingbandwidthhereandthere(well...notonfiber),but
🐸🐸nearlytheentirejumpfrom30to35%happenedinthelast*single*
🐸🐸minuteoftheseven-minuteperiod.Itstayedat30foroversix
🐸🐸minutes,thengotthenextfivepercentinamatterofseconds.The
🐸🐸highestthroughputwaslikelywellover300KB/s,andthelowestdownin
🐸🐸thebpsrange.ProcessExplorercorroboratedthis.Therewerelong
🐸🐸intervalswithtotal(system-wide)networkI/Osolowastoreadas
🐸🐸zero,duringthedownload,aswellasshowingnosignificantdiskI/O.
🐸🐸It'snotjustnetworkusethat'sinefficient.Thedownloaderseemsto
🐸🐸involveaninordinatenumberofprocessesandconsumeaninordinate
🐸🐸numberofCPUcycles.IsawspikesofCPUactivity(typically
🐸🐸saturatingonecore)fromallofthefollowingduringthedownload:
🐸🐸wuauclt.exe,System,TrustedInstaller.exe,*and*thesvchost.exe
🐸🐸instancewith"WindowsUpdate"listedasamongtheservicesithosts,
🐸🐸atvariedtimes.WhenFirefoxdownloads400MBoffiles,bycontrast,
🐸🐸itconsumesafairlysteadybandwidth,whichneverdropsanywherenear
🐸🐸aslowasliterally-vanishingly-smallasdisplayedbyProcessExplorer
🐸🐸untilthedownloadisdone,anditsCPUconsumptionissteadyandquite
🐸🐸low,thoughhigherthanwhenitisidle.Unsurprisingsincedownloading
🐸🐸isanI/O-boundtask.Addinginsulttoinjury,whenalltheupdatesand
🐸🐸rebootsweredone,Windozesoonstartedshowing*another*new
🐸🐸"important"update,albeitonly9MBinsize,eventhoughaspreviously
🐸🐸noteditwasnotPatchTuesdayanymore.Ifthisupdatewaspartofthe
🐸🐸PatchTuesdaybatchwhydidn'titgetitwiththeother400MBof
🐸🐸updates?Ifitwasnewinthosefewminuteswhywasitreleasedoutside
🐸🐸oftheusualpatchingcycle?Thisfilestayedat"Downloading...0%"
🐸🐸forelevenminutesbeforethenumberchangedtoonepercent.Itwasa
🐸🐸measly9megabytes.Assuming,conservatively,thatthepercentage
🐸🐸roundsdownratherthantonearest,soitstilldisplayszeroallthe
🐸🐸waythrough0.99%,thatmeansittook11minutestogetthefirst94KB
🐸🐸ofthefile.Itaveragestojustunder8600bytesperminute.143baud.
🐸🐸Ihadacousticmodemsthatweretwicethatfastinthe
🐸🐸nineteen-freaking-SEVENTIES.Thesortthatactuallycuppedatelephone
🐸🐸handsetratherthanpluggingdirectlyintothephoneline.143baud,
🐸🐸for11minutes,afterwhichfortunatelyitspedupconsiderably,
🐸🐸averagingahundredorsoKB/sfortheremaining99%ofthefile.143
🐸🐸FUCKINGBAUD.WHATTHEHELL,MICROSOFT?Ifyoulikenadecent,
🐸🐸purpose-designeddownloadtool(sftp)toquicksort,andFirefox's
🐸🐸downloader(HTTP,sodistinctlysuboptimalto(s)ftp)tomergesort,
🐸🐸whateverthefuckMicrosofthasimplementedunderthehoodisnot,as
🐸🐸youmightexpect,bubblesort.Thereissimplynoconceivableexcuse
🐸🐸forlengthyperiodsofsub-1KB/sdownloadspeedsfromanorganization
🐸🐸deep-pocketedenoughtobuyaprivatecontinentandpaveitwithdata
🐸🐸centers,norforanyprofessionalprogrammertoproducesoftwarewith
🐸🐸suchawackyfluctuatingpatternofmovingCPUuseduringwhatshould
🐸🐸beaveryfine-grainedly-repetitivetaskofgetabytefromasocket,
🐸🐸putabyteonthedisk,getabytefromasocket...forforty-odd
🐸🐸minutes.No,Microsoft'sWindozeUpdatedownloaderisthebogo-sortof
🐸🐸downloadtools.Andit'shardtoconceiveofitbeingthatwayinany
🐸🐸otherfashionthanonpurpose.Therealquestionis:howdoesMicrosoft
🐸🐸benefitfrommakingupdatingdeliberatelyslowandinefficient?
🐸🐸KickbacksfromIntelandsystembuilders?ISPs?It'snot
🐸🐸captive-audienceadvertising:thiswastheupdaterinanoldWin8.1
🐸🐸box,frombeforeMicrosoftdecidedtoturnWindozeintoslimyadware.
🐸🐸Meanwhile,allmylinuxboxenapt-gettheirupdatesatsteadyand
🐸🐸nicely-highthroughputs,withsteadylowCPUuse,comparabletosftp,
🐸🐸oratleasttoFirefox.Vivalaopensource!
🐸
🐸Ididn'tbothertoreadthatmuchofyourfrothyfoamage,butit's
🐸obviousyoudowngradedtoWindows10,soyougotwhatyoudeserve.Do
🐸youhaveanyideahowmanysmartpeoplelikemehavedecidedtostay
🐸withWin7?
🐸
if you were smart you'd run freeBSD or something other than wind0$e, prolly.
wtf do you need windows for, much less, win7?
"nads" won't comment on this poast...
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)
"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Anti-Muslim Wannabe Homegrown Terrorist Posting as "💩
<More.Bul...@gmail.com>" determined that the following was of
great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<cupfkc....@news.alt.net>:
🐸Warning!AlwayswearANSIapprovedsafetygoggleswhenreadingpostsby
🐸💩.
🐸
🐸OnSun,23Feb202001:04:45-0000(UTC)Nadegdaputforththe
🐸followingnotion,whichwasdulynotedandrecorded:
🐸
🐸
🐸🐸WindozeUpdateishorriblymisdesigned,andIhaveproof.Iwon't
🐸🐸pretendtoknowthenittygrittydetailsofwhatgoesonunderthehood
🐸🐸whenitisactuallyinstallingtheupdates;fortunately,Idon'thave
🐸🐸to,becauseitprovesitsbrokennessevenbeforeitgetstothatpoint.
🐸🐸Yousee,the*downloader*initisterribleinitsownright.Lasttime
🐸🐸IinstalledabatchofPatchTuesdayupdates,theyweighedinata
🐸🐸hefty400MB.Iwillnotethatthisseemslikelytobeinefficient--
🐸🐸surelyafewbugfixescanbeencodedinamuchsmallerdatasizethan
🐸🐸this?--butIwillprovisionallystipulatetothesizebeingsomehow
🐸🐸necessary,becauseIcanstilleasilyprovemycase.Fromthetimeit
🐸🐸firstdisplayed"Downloading",alongwiththetotalvolumeofdata(400
🐸🐸MB)andabarepercentagecomplete(initially0%),untilitceasedto
🐸🐸be"Downloading"andbegan"Preparingtoinstall",took58minutes.
🐸🐸Thatworksouttoanaveragedownloadspeedofjustover120KB/s.This
🐸🐸isalreadyamildindictmentof,atleast,Microsoft'sserver
🐸🐸infrastructure--surelytheycanprovideahigherspeedthanthatto
🐸🐸theend-user?Ihadwaited,asisprudent,somedayspastPatchTuesday
🐸🐸toletothersbethesuckerunpaidbeta-testersandtripoverthebugs,
🐸🐸sothepeakofdownloadtrafficwouldhavebeenlongdone.Icouldsee
🐸🐸evenMicrosoftbeingchallengedtodeliverdecentthroughputto
🐸🐸literallybillionsofsimultaneousdownloaders,butitshouldhavebeen
🐸🐸downtoafewthousandbythetimeIjumpedintothefray,andstillI
🐸🐸gotspeedsthatwouldmakeacruddyruralDSLproviderhangitsheadin
🐸🐸shame,andIhavefibertomydoor.Butthisisn'tthehalfofit.That
🐸🐸120KB/sisthe*average*.Youmightthinkthethroughputwouldhavebeen
🐸🐸fairlysteady...totallynot.AlthoughtheWindozeUpdatetoolitself
🐸🐸onlydisplayedoneupdatingmetric,anintegerpercentage-done,fromthe
🐸🐸starttotheendofthedownloadingprocess,Icouldgleanother
🐸🐸informationfromtoolslikeProcessExplorer,andIcouldnotetimesand
🐸🐸percentagesdownaswell.WhatIsawwasthroughputfluctuatingover
🐸🐸aboutFIVEordersofmagnitude,fromtriplethat120KB/stoalmost
🐸🐸undetectablysmall.Forinstance,togetfrom30%to35%tookseven
🐸🐸minutes(about50KB/s),togetfrom35%to40%tookonlythree(over
🐸🐸100),andforawhileafterthatitclimbedatjustoveronepercent
🐸🐸perminute(70KB/s).Thatseemsreasonable,especiallyifotherapps
🐸🐸weregrabbingbandwidthhereandthere(well...notonfiber),but
🐸🐸nearlytheentirejumpfrom30to35%happenedinthelast*single*
🐸🐸minuteoftheseven-minuteperiod.Itstayedat30foroversix
🐸🐸minutes,thengotthenextfivepercentinamatterofseconds.The
🐸🐸highestthroughputwaslikelywellover300KB/s,andthelowestdownin
🐸🐸thebpsrange.ProcessExplorercorroboratedthis.Therewerelong
🐸🐸intervalswithtotal(system-wide)networkI/Osolowastoreadas
🐸🐸zero,duringthedownload,aswellasshowingnosignificantdiskI/O.
🐸🐸It'snotjustnetworkusethat'sinefficient.Thedownloaderseemsto
🐸🐸involveaninordinatenumberofprocessesandconsumeaninordinate
🐸🐸numberofCPUcycles.IsawspikesofCPUactivity(typically
🐸🐸saturatingonecore)fromallofthefollowingduringthedownload:
🐸🐸wuauclt.exe,System,TrustedInstaller.exe,*and*thesvchost.exe
🐸🐸instancewith"WindowsUpdate"listedasamongtheservicesithosts,
🐸🐸atvariedtimes.WhenFirefoxdownloads400MBoffiles,bycontrast,
🐸🐸itconsumesafairlysteadybandwidth,whichneverdropsanywherenear
🐸🐸aslowasliterally-vanishingly-smallasdisplayedbyProcessExplorer
🐸🐸untilthedownloadisdone,anditsCPUconsumptionissteadyandquite
🐸🐸low,thoughhigherthanwhenitisidle.Unsurprisingsincedownloading
🐸🐸isanI/O-boundtask.Addinginsulttoinjury,whenalltheupdatesand
🐸🐸rebootsweredone,Windozesoonstartedshowing*another*new
🐸🐸"important"update,albeitonly9MBinsize,eventhoughaspreviously
🐸🐸noteditwasnotPatchTuesdayanymore.Ifthisupdatewaspartofthe
🐸🐸PatchTuesdaybatchwhydidn'titgetitwiththeother400MBof
🐸🐸updates?Ifitwasnewinthosefewminuteswhywasitreleasedoutside
🐸🐸oftheusualpatchingcycle?Thisfilestayedat"Downloading...0%"
🐸🐸forelevenminutesbeforethenumberchangedtoonepercent.Itwasa
🐸🐸measly9megabytes.Assuming,conservatively,thatthepercentage
🐸🐸roundsdownratherthantonearest,soitstilldisplayszeroallthe
🐸🐸waythrough0.99%,thatmeansittook11minutestogetthefirst94KB
🐸🐸ofthefile.Itaveragestojustunder8600bytesperminute.143baud.
🐸🐸Ihadacousticmodemsthatweretwicethatfastinthe
🐸🐸nineteen-freaking-SEVENTIES.Thesortthatactuallycuppedatelephone
🐸🐸handsetratherthanpluggingdirectlyintothephoneline.143baud,
🐸🐸for11minutes,afterwhichfortunatelyitspedupconsiderably,
🐸🐸averagingahundredorsoKB/sfortheremaining99%ofthefile.143
🐸🐸FUCKINGBAUD.WHATTHEHELL,MICROSOFT?Ifyoulikenadecent,
🐸🐸purpose-designeddownloadtool(sftp)toquicksort,andFirefox's
🐸🐸downloader(HTTP,sodistinctlysuboptimalto(s)ftp)tomergesort,
🐸🐸whateverthefuckMicrosofthasimplementedunderthehoodisnot,as
🐸🐸youmightexpect,bubblesort.Thereissimplynoconceivableexcuse
🐸🐸forlengthyperiodsofsub-1KB/sdownloadspeedsfromanorganization
🐸🐸deep-pocketedenoughtobuyaprivatecontinentandpaveitwithdata
🐸🐸centers,norforanyprofessionalprogrammertoproducesoftwarewith
🐸🐸suchawackyfluctuatingpatternofmovingCPUuseduringwhatshould
🐸🐸beaveryfine-grainedly-repetitivetaskofgetabytefromasocket,
🐸🐸putabyteonthedisk,getabytefromasocket...forforty-odd
🐸🐸minutes.No,Microsoft'sWindozeUpdatedownloaderisthebogo-sortof
🐸🐸downloadtools.Andit'shardtoconceiveofitbeingthatwayinany
🐸🐸otherfashionthanonpurpose.Therealquestionis:howdoesMicrosoft
🐸🐸benefitfrommakingupdatingdeliberatelyslowandinefficient?
🐸🐸KickbacksfromIntelandsystembuilders?ISPs?It'snot
🐸🐸captive-audienceadvertising:thiswastheupdaterinanoldWin8.1
🐸🐸box,frombeforeMicrosoftdecidedtoturnWindozeintoslimyadware.
🐸🐸Meanwhile,allmylinuxboxenapt-gettheirupdatesatsteadyand
🐸🐸nicely-highthroughputs,withsteadylowCPUuse,comparabletosftp,
🐸🐸oratleasttoFirefox.Vivalaopensource!
🐸
🐸Ididn'tbothertoreadthatmuchofyourfrothyfoamage,butit's
🐸obviousyoudowngradedtoWindows10,soyougotwhatyoudeserve.Do
🐸youhaveanyideahowmanysmartpeoplelikemehavedecidedtostay
🐸withWin7?
🐸
if you were smart you'd run freeBSD or something other than wind0$e, prolly.
wtf do you need windows for, much less, win7?
"nads" won't comment on this poast...
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)
"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Checkmate
23 févr. 2020, 14:02:2423/02/2020
à
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 20:57:35 -0500 "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." put forth
Checkmate.
the following notion, which was duly noted and recorded:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
> <trimmed to end>
>
> I agree. Windows update if a terribly inefficient mess.
>
> Thankfully, there is a work around which is to set Windows
> updates to download only over wifi and designate your
> Internet connection as a metered connection. All you
> will end up with is nags saying Windows Update was
> unable to download updates.
>
> I have found that Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 work
> just fine without any stupid updates. Interestingly,
> the Windows Defender updates (definitions) are small
> and update fast using very little data. I do allow those.
Windows 7 has served me well for many years, and is very stable. There
>
> >Windoze Update is horribly misdesigned, and I have proof.
> <trimmed to end>
>
> I agree. Windows update if a terribly inefficient mess.
>
> Thankfully, there is a work around which is to set Windows
> updates to download only over wifi and designate your
> Internet connection as a metered connection. All you
> will end up with is nags saying Windows Update was
> unable to download updates.
>
> I have found that Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 work
> just fine without any stupid updates. Interestingly,
> the Windows Defender updates (definitions) are small
> and update fast using very little data. I do allow those.
are literally millions who refuse to downgrade to Win 10, but Micro$oft
still doesn't get the picture.
"Sir Hømer Hall, Esq."
23 févr. 2020, 14:13:4323/02/2020
à
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, Checkmate <More.Bul...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
>Windows 7 has served me well for many years, and is very stable. There
>are literally millions who refuse to downgrade to Win 10, but Micro$oft
>still doesn't get the picture.
It's time to upgrade to 10. Why? Well, you can bet that
hackers will be working overtime to infect Windows 7
users who are no longer being protected. They will find
and exploit loopholes that will no longer being patched.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the hackers are
actually working for Microsoft. All the better to force
Windows 7 and earlier versions to upgrade so Microsoft
can spy on you better.
<...>
>Windows 7 has served me well for many years, and is very stable. There
>are literally millions who refuse to downgrade to Win 10, but Micro$oft
>still doesn't get the picture.
hackers will be working overtime to infect Windows 7
users who are no longer being protected. They will find
and exploit loopholes that will no longer being patched.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the hackers are
actually working for Microsoft. All the better to force
Windows 7 and earlier versions to upgrade so Microsoft
can spy on you better.
Nadegda
23 févr. 2020, 15:48:2223/02/2020
à
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
and it loaded fine. PE showed a short spike of network activity, then
settled back to basically zero.
Problem's with either Microsoft's update client or with their servers (or
the ISP they use to get their servers connected).
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 23:30:42 -0500, kensi wrote:
> On 2/22/2020 8:04 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> 143 FUCKING BAUD.
>>
>> WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
>
> o.O
>
> I'd wonder if your fiber was working, but I'm assuming that you thought
> of that and tested it in some way.
Yep. Loaded some page in Firefox to see if the network was still working
> On 2/22/2020 8:04 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> 143 FUCKING BAUD.
>>
>> WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
>
> o.O
>
> I'd wonder if your fiber was working, but I'm assuming that you thought
> of that and tested it in some way.
and it loaded fine. PE showed a short spike of network activity, then
settled back to basically zero.
Problem's with either Microsoft's update client or with their servers (or
the ISP they use to get their servers connected).
"Sir Hømer Hall, Esq."
23 févr. 2020, 16:06:3923/02/2020
à
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>Problem's with either Microsoft's update client or with their servers (or
>the ISP they use to get their servers connected).
It's their servers. Way overloaded and they are too
>Problem's with either Microsoft's update client or with their servers (or
>the ISP they use to get their servers connected).
cheap to upgrade them.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
23 févr. 2020, 17:07:4523/02/2020
à
In message <ugj55flbqd2u8lial...@4ax.com>, "Sir Hømer
version of Windows - I think especially XP; I'm not saying there weren't
_some_ hackers who "went for it" as soon as support (well, fixing)
ended, but it wasn't the swarm that some people expected; most, it
seems, targeted 7 (and subsequently, 10), for no _clear_ reason, though
the one usually _put forward_ was that those had more users so the
returns were more cost-effective.
There's no strong reason to believe that this will happen this time,
however: maybe 7 _is_ being heavily targeted.
(Having said that, it's been past end of support for what, 9 days?, and
I've not _heard_ of any major attack. But maybe that isn't long enough
to get any idea.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you're worried that your house is haunted by a ghost and might need
exorcising, there's an easy way of working out if it is or it isn't: it isn't.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7-13
Hall, Es q." <greghall@?.fake.invalid> writes:
>On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, Checkmate <More.Bul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><...>
>
>>Windows 7 has served me well for many years, and is very stable. There
>>are literally millions who refuse to downgrade to Win 10, but Micro$oft
>>still doesn't get the picture.
>
>It's time to upgrade to 10. Why? Well, you can bet that
>hackers will be working overtime to infect Windows 7
>users who are no longer being protected. They will find
>and exploit loopholes that will no longer being patched.
The short answer is, Nobody Knows. The same has been claimed for each
>On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, Checkmate <More.Bul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><...>
>
>>Windows 7 has served me well for many years, and is very stable. There
>>are literally millions who refuse to downgrade to Win 10, but Micro$oft
>>still doesn't get the picture.
>
>It's time to upgrade to 10. Why? Well, you can bet that
>hackers will be working overtime to infect Windows 7
>users who are no longer being protected. They will find
>and exploit loopholes that will no longer being patched.
version of Windows - I think especially XP; I'm not saying there weren't
_some_ hackers who "went for it" as soon as support (well, fixing)
ended, but it wasn't the swarm that some people expected; most, it
seems, targeted 7 (and subsequently, 10), for no _clear_ reason, though
the one usually _put forward_ was that those had more users so the
returns were more cost-effective.
There's no strong reason to believe that this will happen this time,
however: maybe 7 _is_ being heavily targeted.
(Having said that, it's been past end of support for what, 9 days?, and
I've not _heard_ of any major attack. But maybe that isn't long enough
to get any idea.)
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if some of the hackers are
>actually working for Microsoft. All the better to force
>Windows 7 and earlier versions to upgrade so Microsoft
>can spy on you better.
>
Hmm.
>It wouldn't surprise me if some of the hackers are
>actually working for Microsoft. All the better to force
>Windows 7 and earlier versions to upgrade so Microsoft
>can spy on you better.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you're worried that your house is haunted by a ghost and might need
exorcising, there's an easy way of working out if it is or it isn't: it isn't.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7-13
vallor
25 févr. 2020, 06:23:2225/02/2020
à
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:48:21 +0000, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 23:30:42 -0500, kensi wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2020 8:04 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> 143 FUCKING BAUD.
>>>
>>> WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
>>
>> o.O
>>
>> I'd wonder if your fiber was working, but I'm assuming that you thought
>> of that and tested it in some way.
>
> Yep. Loaded some page in Firefox to see if the network was still working
> and it loaded fine. PE showed a short spike of network activity, then
> settled back to basically zero.
>
> Problem's with either Microsoft's update client or with their servers
> (or the ISP they use to get their servers connected).
Here's hoping you've turned off peer-to-peer downloads.
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 23:30:42 -0500, kensi wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2020 8:04 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> 143 FUCKING BAUD.
>>>
>>> WHAT THE HELL, MICROSOFT?
>>
>> o.O
>>
>> I'd wonder if your fiber was working, but I'm assuming that you thought
>> of that and tested it in some way.
>
> Yep. Loaded some page in Firefox to see if the network was still working
> and it loaded fine. PE showed a short spike of network activity, then
> settled back to basically zero.
>
> Problem's with either Microsoft's update client or with their servers
> (or the ISP they use to get their servers connected).
If you haven't: Shut that crap off, Microsoft is ripping you off to save
bandwidth.
--
-v
"Fortunately, I hear from God about stuff." -"Michael Christ"
"The Allwise Creator hath been dishonored by being made the author of
fable, and the human mind degraded by believing it." -Thomas Paine
0 nouveau message