Stop Win 10 Re-booting after Update

[Jeff Gaines]

My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
just cannot risk losing data.

I have searched for this issue and found some astonishing answers.
Anything from MSFT says turn off automatically restart after system
failure, makes it look as if they are being deliberately obscure. Many
others say it's impossible, some suggest registry or policy tweaks.

Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is
Mike Linn when you need him?).

If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Most people have heard of Karl Marx the philosopher but few know of his
sister Onya the Olympic runner.
Her name is still mentioned at the start of every race.

[GB]

On 10/01/2024 08:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
> goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
> just cannot risk losing data.
>
> I have searched for this issue and found some astonishing answers.
> Anything from MSFT says turn off automatically restart after system
> failure, makes it look as if they are being deliberately obscure. Many
> others say it's impossible, some suggest registry or policy tweaks.
>
> Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is
> Mike Linn when you need him?).
>
> If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.
>

You can pause updates for up to 7 days. Then do any updates that are
pending, whilst you supervise, then pause any updates again ...

That's not perfect, but it solves your problem.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 10 Jan 2024 at 08:36:52 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:

>
> My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
> goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
> just cannot risk losing data.

It's absolutely shocking to me how MS will do this without also
providing a 'restore state' mechanism for apps to come back as they were
before the bounce, like the Mac has.

Best you can do is pause it for a few days and then do any updates
manually so you know.

> If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.

Not really.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Being english is like visiting a zoo where all the
animals are other english people, in the rain.
-- Cyriak Harris

[Jeff Gaines]

On 10/01/2024 in message <xn0ognn2...@news.individual.net> Jeff

Gaines wrote:

>Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is
>Mike Linn when you need him?).

Many thanks GB & Jaimie :-)

I did find an answer from a MVP that involved a registry tweak, it didn't
do what he said it would but update doesn't work any more. At worst I can
create an add and a remove file for the registry and have it under manual
control.

I have now asked in the MSFT Support Community, see if they come up with
anything. Two out of my three recent questions about Visual Studio were
accepted as bugs in the end and have been formally put on the bug list.

I might put Win 8.1 on a spare PC and see if that is better, I can protect
it with Malwarebytes.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Gaines wrote:

> My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
> goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
> just cannot risk losing data.

Let me state the bleedin' obvious ... save your work :-)

[Jeff Gaines]

On 11/01/2024 in message <l09u1r...@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns
wrote:

I have learned that in the last 42 years since my Vic 20. The work was
saved but I have no idea what was open between Visual Studio, Word,
Ultraedit etc. I am a grown up and I paid for Win 10 Pro so I must be able
to decide when the computer re-boots.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF
if you can read this, you're a nerd 10.

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Gaines wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Let me state the bleedin' obvious ... save your work :-)
>
> I have learned that in the last 42 years since my Vic 20. The work was
> saved but I have no idea what was open between Visual Studio, Word,
> Ultraedit etc. I am a grown up and I paid for Win 10 Pro so I must be
> able to decide when the computer re-boots.

I can't remember what Win10 offers, but here both Win11 Home and Pro
allow pausing updates for 1 to 5 weeks ...

[Mike Scott]

10Pro indefinitely. My box hasn't updated for 2-3 years or more. Suits
me. The info is out there somewhere.

--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

[Jeff Gaines]

On 11/01/2024 in message <l0a20n...@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns
wrote:

I had a reply from a Windows forum saying "you can't" so I responded and
said I had read the policy could be changed with the group policy editor.
The same chap said "oh well if you have that then you can". It's on every
copy of Win Pro.

He has also pointed me to a different MSFT forum so I'll give that a go.

I put Win 8.1 back on a laptop and it is quite refreshing to be able find
things again, and have grown up options for updates, but I'm not sure my
new build will run it

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

[Ian Jackson]

In message <unol2j$2voeo$1...@dont-email.me>, Mike Scott
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> writes

Just a word of warning.....
My W10 - PC is pretty ancient (it started life on W7), and Windows
'updates' can really screw things up.

After throwing a couple of spanners in the works, for two years I had
the updates successfully blocked. Unfortunately, I foolishly installed
some program (really just to see what it did), and during the
installation selected a "Check for updates" ticky-box, expecting it to
check for the latest version of the program. It didn't. Instead it meant
to check and install the latest updates for Windows 10, which it
proceeded to do.

subsequently did the 10(?) day further update suspension, to give me
time to re-apply the update spanner - but being Christmas and New Year
period, I've never got around to it. Fortunately, although the
suspension time will now be well expired, no further updates have
occurred - so hopefully it was a one-off event.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

[Jeff Gaines]

On 11/01/2024 in message <xn0ogp7dy...@news.individual.net> Jeff

Gaines wrote:

>He has also pointed me to a different MSFT forum so I'll give that a go.

And my question has been deleted for breaching he rules, no idea what one.
I've tried posting it again and asking for an explanation.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

George Washington was a British subject until well after his 40th birthday.
(Margaret Thatcher, speech at the White House 17 December 1979)

[Mike Scott]

On 11/01/2024 17:12, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> 10Pro indefinitely. My box hasn't updated for 2-3 years or more. Suits
>> me. The info is out there somewhere.
>>
> Just a word of warning.....
> My W10 - PC is pretty ancient (it started life on W7), and Windows
> 'updates' can really screw things up.

Which is why I disabled them. The sole raison d'etre of this box is to
run Garmin's satnav updates; otherwise we're 100% linux at home. After a
year's off-time, I turned it on, so it chucked in an absolute mound of
updates. One of which broke the boot sequence right royally. It took me,
IIRC, 4 days to fix it.

The whole concept of windows (or anything else for that matter) updating
when it feels like it is sheer madness IMO. If I want to use /my/
computer, I'll use it when /I/ want, not when some charlie thinks
they'll let me.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 11/01/2024 in message <xn0ogpfe...@news.individual.net> Jeff

Gaines wrote:

>On 11/01/2024 in message <xn0ogp7dy...@news.individual.net> Jeff
>Gaines wrote:
>
>>He has also pointed me to a different MSFT forum so I'll give that a go.
>
>And my question has been deleted for breaching he rules, no idea what one.
>I've tried posting it again and asking for an explanation.

I asked three times and one of them was published. I said:

"is it possible to set up a policy like that in Win 8.1 - download but
don't install until authorised?"

And the response was:

"Do you want to disable Windows Update or Pause it?".

I despair :-(

Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

I was standing in the park wondering why Frisbees got bigger as they get
closer.
Then it hit me.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy...@news.individual.net> Jeff

Gaines wrote:

>Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
>somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?

The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and much
of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long you can
defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of points:

1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time to
check what version of Win 10 he is running?

2) Has anybody tried un-installing Win 10 updates with any success? I know
it's theoretically possible but wonder if it is practical. I could then
roll back to the update before the limit was put on deferring updates.

Many thanks

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

[GB]

On 13/01/2024 12:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
>> Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
>> somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
>
> The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and
> much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long
> you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of
> points:
>
> 1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time
> to check what version of Win 10 he is running?
>
> 2) Has anybody tried un-installing Win 10 updates with any success? I
> know it's theoretically possible but wonder if it is practical. I could
> then roll back to the update before the limit was put on deferring updates.
>
> Many thanks
>

What is terrifying you about this? You want your system to act reliably,
as you have a court case in 3 weeks. Fair enough, then, install the
security updates.

Okay, you don't want overnight updates. So, pause updates for a few
days, then install them when it's convenient.

[Jeff Gaines]

The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum because
so much of it is wrong.

It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends

[Pancho]

On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:

>
> It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
> have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
> re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
>

Stability.

It is much easier to deliver and test software in a standard
environment. Rolling out software to end users was always a nightmare
because a few would have very special unexpected conditions that broke
the software.

My limited experience of Windows recovery has been good. Windows
recovery allows you to restore the OS to a state prior to a recent update.

So on balance, you are probably better to go with the flow, and only
pause Windows Update at very critical times.

[Jeff Gaines]

When we are talking about a PC I paid for with an OS for which I paid the
licence fee an external body re-booting my PC remotely without my consent
is akin to hacking to me.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 13 Jan 2024 at 14:11:02 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:

> It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
> have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
> re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?

You shouldn't. I don't. I moved off Windows years ago for anything
serious; I have a games and VR machine that gets treated like a console
- if there's an update I'll do "update and shutdown" after I've finished
a games session.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I love children, especially when they cry, for then someone takes them away.
-- Nancy Mitford

[Daniel James]

On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum
> because so much of it is wrong.

MS actually have very little to do with the running of 'their' forums --
it all costs money, you see -- and are seemingly happy to have Joe
Public and his dog spread half-understood half-truths instead.

> It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us
> to have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
> re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness
> sake?

What you NEED to accept is that Windows is flaky enough to need regular
updates for stability and security, and is badly-enough designed that it
can't update some parts of itself without a reboot. With those two
things in mind it's clear that you either have to let Windows reboot now
and again, or have to expect Windows to say "I need to be rebooted now
to install the updates".

I'm sure it used to do the latter, and I suppose people complained about
it if they've switched to doing the former.

I used to leave my PC running overnight (and it got automagically backed
up to a NAS in the wee small hours) on the grounds that the cost of the
electricity was small and not power-cycling the hardware probably made
it last longer. Even so I closed every application when I stopped work
(partly so that all the data would be in a fit state to be backed up_.

Since then the cost of power has gone up, we're all being told to save
the planet, and I've come to realize that modern PCs last longer than
even I want to run them for. I power down in the evening and up again in
the morning. It really doesn't take that long.

I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous
one used about 65W at idle. At current domestic electricity rates (say
30p/kWh) turning the box off for 8 hours overnight saves just under £60
a year. I used to say that in winter that didn't signify as the energy
was heating the room anyway, but now I have more efficient heating from
a heat pump about £40 of that £60 really is waste even in winter when
the heating's on ... and all of it in summer.

I no longer run the NAS overnight, either, so I'm saving even more.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 14/01/2024 in message <uo0ha8$dut2$1...@dont-email.me> Daniel James wrote:

>On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum because
>>so much of it is wrong.
>
>MS actually have very little to do with the running of 'their' forums --
>it all costs money, you see -- and are seemingly happy to have Joe Public
>and his dog spread half-understood half-truths instead.

That's interesting. I have been using the following to get to the forums:

https://learn.microsoft.com/

The Visual Studio forum always brings replies from MSFT staff who
faithfully reproduce the issues, put them to the right product group and
copy me in on the correspondence. Of the three recent queries 2 have
resulted in official bug reports being raised and the other in an excelled
suggestion about using a slightly different way of doing what I was trying
to do - which worked perfectly!

However, the Windows forum seems to be answered by a motley crew as you
suggest and the answers are generally nonsense - and always accompanied by
a request to "accept" or "upvote" it.

>>It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us
>>to have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
>>re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness
>>sake?
>What you NEED to accept is that Windows is flaky enough to need regular
>updates for stability and security, and is badly-enough designed that it
>can't update some parts of itself without a reboot. With those two things
>in mind it's clear that you either have to let Windows reboot now and
>again, or have to expect Windows to say "I need to be rebooted now to
>install the updates".

I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, although Windows has been pretty
stable since Win 7. Programs I wrote for Win 98 and that make extensive
use of the Windows API still work perfectly well on Windows 10 so very
little has changed under the bonnet. It's mainly cosmetic with as much as
possible now being obscured or hidden.

>I'm sure it used to do the latter, and I suppose people complained about
>it if they've switched to doing the former.

Yes, I have BEEN switched with no choice so I'm annoyed.

>I used to leave my PC running overnight (and it got automagically backed
>up to a NAS in the wee small hours) on the grounds that the cost of the
>electricity was small and not power-cycling the hardware probably made it
>last longer. Even so I closed every application when I stopped work
>(partly so that all the data would be in a fit state to be backed up_.
>
>Since then the cost of power has gone up, we're all being told to save the
>planet, and I've come to realize that modern PCs last longer than even I
>want to run them for. I power down in the evening and up again in the
>morning. It really doesn't take that long.
>
>I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous one
>used about 65W at idle. At current domestic electricity rates (say
>30p/kWh) turning the box off for 8 hours overnight saves just under £60 a
>year. I used to say that in winter that didn't signify as the energy was
>heating the room anyway, but now I have more efficient heating from a heat
>pump about £40 of that £60 really is waste even in winter when the
>heating's on ... and all of it in summer.
>
>I no longer run the NAS overnight, either, so I'm saving even more.

I have 2 x desktops and 2 x NAS running 24/7 with scheduled overnight
backups. I haven't re-connected the Mac Mini because I haven't been
practising my Re.Corder as I should!

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Here we go it's getting close, now it's just who wants it most.

[RJH]

On 14 Jan 2024 at 11:42:51 GMT, Daniel James wrote:

> I used to leave my PC running overnight (and it got automagically backed
> up to a NAS in the wee small hours) on the grounds that the cost of the
> electricity was small and not power-cycling the hardware probably made
> it last longer. Even so I closed every application when I stopped work
> (partly so that all the data would be in a fit state to be backed up_.
>
> Since then the cost of power has gone up, we're all being told to save
> the planet, and I've come to realize that modern PCs last longer than
> even I want to run them for. I power down in the evening and up again in
> the morning. It really doesn't take that long.
>
> I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous
> one used about 65W at idle. At current domestic electricity rates (say
> 30p/kWh) turning the box off for 8 hours overnight saves just under £60
> a year. I used to say that in winter that didn't signify as the energy
> was heating the room anyway, but now I have more efficient heating from
> a heat pump about £40 of that £60 really is waste even in winter when
> the heating's on ... and all of it in summer.

I would think/hope that in sleep mode your PC uses far less than that - 5W
maybe?
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

[Tom Furie]

RJH <patch...@gmx.com> writes:

> On 14 Jan 2024 at 11:42:51 GMT, Daniel James wrote:
>> I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous
>> one used about 65W at idle.

> I would think/hope that in sleep mode your PC uses far less than that
> - 5W maybe?

Nobody mentioned sleep mode, until you, only idle - which I take to mean
sitting at the desktop or login screen but not actively doing
anything. But if you're putting it to sleep, why not save that extra 5W
and shut it down completely anyway?

[RJH]

On 14 Jan 2024 at 15:10:18 GMT, Tom Furie wrote:

> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> writes:
>
>> On 14 Jan 2024 at 11:42:51 GMT, Daniel James wrote:
>>> I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous
>>> one used about 65W at idle.
>> I would think/hope that in sleep mode your PC uses far less than that
>> - 5W maybe?
>
> Nobody mentioned sleep mode, until you, only idle - which I take to mean
> sitting at the desktop or login screen but not actively doing
> anything.

I've never understood why someone would keep a PC at 'idle' when it's not
doing anything. Why not 'sleep', if that mode's reliable (wakes up for network
polls for example)?

I remember when Windows sleep was hideoously unreliable, with crashes on wake
and such like. Nowadays it seems quite stable - Mac-like even :-)

> But if you're putting it to sleep, why not save that extra 5W
> and shut it down completely anyway?

Save time booting, in the main. And possibly save some stress on certain
components?

[Philip Herlihy]

In article <xn0ogs3mo...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines wrote...

The newsgroup I'm seeing is uk.comp.homebuilt - nothing whatever to do with
Microsoft.

I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a machine
holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised (and indignant)
when the standard updating process kicks in. It is indeed standard - it's been
doing this for years on end, and little has changed about it. You have some
control - I choose to install updates immediately (but not preview ones) so
that the system chucks up a warning that it'll reboot imminently, and I tell it
not to until I'm ready, which is usually within an hour. Generally I don't
leave loads of applications with unsaved data, or browser tabs which I haven't
bookmarked, for any great time. So if I'm called away, and then there's a
power cut, I haven't lost anything much.

We can argue the toss here about whether Windows is good, or bad, or whether
the updating process represents good engineering or bad, but it is what it is,
and bilions around the world are content with it (including me). Every few
weeks, without intervention, Windows will reboot iteself outside your declared
"active hours". It is what it is. And only a fool is surprised by the same
thing twice!

--

Phil, London

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 14 Jan 2024 at 14:28:09 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgne...@outlook.com>
wrote:

> On 14/01/2024 in message <uo0ha8$dut2$1...@dont-email.me> Daniel James wrote:
>>
>> What you NEED to accept is that Windows is flaky enough to need regular
>> updates for stability and security, and is badly-enough designed that it
>> can't update some parts of itself without a reboot. With those two things
>> in mind it's clear that you either have to let Windows reboot now and
>> again, or have to expect Windows to say "I need to be rebooted now to
>> install the updates".
>
> I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, although Windows has been pretty
> stable since Win 7. Programs I wrote for Win 98 and that make extensive
> use of the Windows API still work perfectly well on Windows 10 so very
> little has changed under the bonnet. It's mainly cosmetic with as much as
> possible now being obscured or hidden.

It's actually the opposite. The cosmetics have changed a little. Under
the hood it's *vastly* different. All those old win32 APIs are running
in legacy sandboxes, carefully kept away from being able to damage the
*actual* system running the hardware. Win64 doesn't have a huge
architectural commonality with Win32 under the hood, and the backwards
compatibility is a huge strain on Microsoft's developer resources.

I'm pleased one OS vendor is concentrating on that back-compat stuff,
but I'm also glad I don't need to ride the enormous tottering tower of
ramshackle bodges on a day to day basis. I jumped ship, apart from the
gaming rig where it doesn't really matter if it collapses mid-use, and
indeed most of the gaming is written to the latest APIs in order to
squeeze the most performance out of the hardware. Not like some poor sod
running Sage.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often
look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that
we do not see the ones which open for us.
- Alexander Graham Bell

[Jeff Gaines]

On 14/01/2024 in message <l0ioed...@mid.individual.net> Jaimie

Vandenbergh wrote:

>>I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, although Windows has been pretty
>>stable since Win 7. Programs I wrote for Win 98 and that make extensive
>>use of the Windows API still work perfectly well on Windows 10 so very
>>little has changed under the bonnet. It's mainly cosmetic with as much as
>>possible now being obscured or hidden.
>
>It's actually the opposite. The cosmetics have changed a little. Under

>the hood it's vastly different. All those old win32 APIs are running

>in legacy sandboxes, carefully kept away from being able to damage the

>actual system running the hardware. Win64 doesn't have a huge

>architectural commonality with Win32 under the hood, and the backwards
>compatibility is a huge strain on Microsoft's developer resources.

Interesting, I have found just the opposite. The API calls haven't changed
at all but the original promise that once you have used one windows
program you can use all of them (i.e. menu layout, colour schemes etc.)
has gone out the window. Ironically when you finally work your way through
to where you actually make changes the dialog box is the same except it
looks entirely different. MSFT stuff is the worse because they lay down
guidelines which they they don't follow. Obviously there are new libraries
that came along with .NET but that's a layer on top and in many cases
using calls to the API is quicker and allows you to achieve more.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

[Daniel James]

On 14/01/2024 17:39, RJH wrote:
> I've never understood why someone would keep a PC at 'idle' when it's not
> doing anything. Why not 'sleep', if that mode's reliable (wakes up for network
> polls for example)?

I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when it's
perfectly possible to turn it off ... well, to standby, which isn't
actually off ... it's still got 5V standby keeping enough of the
motherboard alive for Wake-on-LAN.

I was talking about ages ago, though, when "Sleep" meant "Crash silently
and never recover".

> I remember when Windows sleep was hideoously unreliable, with crashes on wake

> and such like. Nowadays it seems quite stable - Mac-like even 🙂

Yeah, that ... except I haven't used Windows on my main PC since 2010.

>> But if you're putting it to sleep, why not save that extra 5W
>> and shut it down completely anyway?
>
> Save time booting, in the main. And possibly save some stress on certain
> components?

If your time is *that* precious why not pay someone to turn the PC on
before you need it :-)

I don't think the thermal stress on components differs a lot between
sleep and standby.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[Mike Scott]

On 13/01/2024 12:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
>> Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
>> somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
>
> The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and
> much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long
> you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of
> points:
>
> 1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time
> to check what version of Win 10 he is running?

W10 Pro, but the exact version I don't know. If the exact version would
be useful, I'll try to check (if I can find it in the mess that passes
for a menu system).

There was a patch for Pro registry which I applied to disable automatic
updates. I've lost the details though.... :-(

[Jeff Gaines]

Thanks Mike :-)

I managed to find the version - 2400 from memory but I have it bookmarked.

The registry hacks are quite interesting, I have one in place to stop it
offering Win 11. The others now don't do what they originally did but they
leave it unable to update so same effect.

I've put 8.1 back on my K170-K, it's like coming home!

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

[Richard Kettlewell]

Philip Herlihy <Phillip...@SlashDevNull.invalid> writes:
> I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a
> machine holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised
> (and indignant) when the standard updating process kicks in. It is
> indeed standard - it's been doing this for years on end, and little
> has changed about it. You have some control - I choose to install
> updates immediately (but not preview ones) so that the system chucks
> up a warning that it'll reboot imminently, and I tell it not to until
> I'm ready, which is usually within an hour. Generally I don't leave
> loads of applications with unsaved data, or browser tabs which I
> haven't bookmarked, for any great time. So if I'm called away, and
> then there's a power cut, I haven't lost anything much.

Browsers are relatively good at preserving/restoring state across
restarts these days, and macOS will re-open applications after a
restart, but the idea hasn’t spread much further than that yet. I think
complaining about that makes more sense than complaining about restarts
which (although somewhat controllable) are, ultimately, inevitable, in
most environments. The comparison to hacking elsewhere is absurd.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[GB]

On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum
> because so much of it is wrong.
>
> It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
> have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
> re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
>

It caters for the lowest common denominator - lots of people just want
their systems kept up to date. If that requires a reboot, so be it.

There's an option: "Set active hours to let us know when you typically
use this device. We won't automatically restart your device during this
time."

What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that it
does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during the hours
you have said it should?

[GB]

On 15/01/2024 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> The registry hacks are quite interesting

How does that square with your OP "I have a court case in 3 weeks and
just cannot risk losing data. "?

[Theo]

Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/01/2024 17:39, RJH wrote:
> > I've never understood why someone would keep a PC at 'idle' when it's not
> > doing anything. Why not 'sleep', if that mode's reliable (wakes up for network
> > polls for example)?
>
> I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when it's
> perfectly possible to turn it off ... well, to standby, which isn't
> actually off ... it's still got 5V standby keeping enough of the
> motherboard alive for Wake-on-LAN.

Because sleep preserves what you were doing on the desktop, whereas turning
it off comes back with a clean desktop.

Even the MacOS way of remembering what was open only half works - you lose
state in web pages which don't always come back (eg pages that you were
served by submitting a form don't reload properly), and it tends to mess up
ordering in your window stack (some app you no longer care about foregrounds
itself, and you have to go through closing old stuff). And state in things
like terminals and SSH connections gets lost too.

TBH I would prefer it not to reboot and interrupt my workflow, but if it
does reboot the hassle in clearing out all the stuff it half-assed restores
is more hassle than starting with a clean slate and getting back just the
stuff I wanted (especially if it keeps the list of things that were open and
I can cherry pick from it).

Theo

[Jeff Gaines]

I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are 24/7/365
and that is not available.

I do think that PCs have been around so long now that many people have
forgotten what the "P" stands for. It's my PERSONAL computer and it needs
to work in a way that suits me not anybody else. If Win 10 doesn't allow
that then I will find something that does. I now have Win 8.1 running on
this PC with updates set to "Download updates but let me choose whether to
install them". Nice simple option for a grown up used to making my own
decisions.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

We chose to do this not because it is easy but because we thought it would
be easy.

[Jeff Gaines]

What's the connection?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

[Daniel James]

On 15/01/2024 10:41, Theo wrote:
>> I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when
>> it's perfectly possible to turn it off

[snip]

>
> Because sleep preserves what you were doing on the desktop, whereas
> turning it off comes back with a clean desktop.

That's a difference between our attitudes and our workflows. When I come
to the PC in the morning I *WANT* a clean desktop. There's no guarantee
that I'm going to be working on the same things as I was the day before,
nor that I could remember what all those windows were open for anyway.

> Even the MacOS way of remembering what was open only half works - you
> lose state in web pages which don't always come back (eg pages that

> you were served by submitting a form don't reload properly) ...

I close my browser down completely several times during the working day.
I do this because the browser is configured to delete all cookies when
closed, and I don't want cookies to persist any longer than necessary.

The idea that something I was looking at in a browser yesterday might
have any relevance to what I'm doing today strikes me as odd. If I want
to revisit a page I'll bookmark it (I have a lot of bookmarks) and if I
think the page may chance I'll scrape it.

As I say: it's a different approach.

When I used Windows I used to check for updates regularly and install
them manually when there were any (after doing a quick Google to see
whether people were complaining that they broke stuff). That way I
always knew when reboots were likely to be needed, and could be sure
that I wasn't in the middle of something.

Some people were less attentive to the need to update, which is why
automatic updates are now forced on the user, and reboots can happen at
inopportune times.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[Daniel James]

On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> I do think that PCs have been around so long now that many people have
> forgotten what the "P" stands for. It's my PERSONAL computer and it
> needs to work in a way that suits me not anybody else.

Your "PC" is just a node on the internet that we all use. If it becomes
infected with malware because you haven't updated it it can affect all
of us. It is no longer a strictly "Personal" device.

You have some responsibility to keep it safe for the rest of us, which
you can help to do by ensuring that it is updated in a timely fashion;
whether you do this by setting a delay on automatic updates and updating
manually at a time of your own choosing, or by letting the automated
system work as it pleases.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[GB]

On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:

>> There's an option:  "Set active hours to let us know when you
>> typically use this device. We won't automatically restart your device
>> during this time."
>>
>> What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that it
>> does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during the
>> hours you have said it should?
>
>
> I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are
> 24/7/365 and that is not available.

You can set active hours for an 18 hour window, and it won't reboot
during those hours.

I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for practical
help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important court trial.

[Jeff Gaines]

I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who
watch them without doing anything. (Albert Einstein)

[Jeff Gaines]

On 14/01/2024 in message
<MPG.400e33573...@news.eternal-september.org> Philip Herlihy
wrote:

>I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a machine
>holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised (and
>indignant)
>when the standard updating process kicks in. It is indeed standard - it's
>been
>doing this for years on end, and little has changed about it.

Changing from asking if it's OK to install then asking if it's OK to
re-boot is rather an extreme change from just installing and re-booting
with no warning surely?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Every day is a good day for chicken, unless you're a chicken.

[Jeff Gaines]

It may help if you actually read my OP before posting patronising bollocks.

I have always kept Windows up to date, my complaint is about the process
which has changed substantially, but you will discover that if you read
the thread.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

How does a gender neutral bog differ from a unisex bog ?
It has a non-binary number on the door.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 10/01/2024 in message <xn0ognn2...@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:

>If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.

Just to close this off I have re-installed Win 8.1 and transferred and
activated all the apps that needed it so I have what I need, even found an
old copy of Brave which I think I will stick with as somehow it manages to
hide its ad-blocker which extensions don't seem able to.

Happy and safe computing to all, I will do my best to meet my social
responsibilities to those who think I should :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?
(President Hayes speaking to Alexander Graham Bell on the invention of the
telephone)

[GB]

On 15/01/2024 13:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3af4$u9ng$1...@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>>> There's an option:  "Set active hours to let us know when you
>>>> typically use this device. We won't automatically restart your
>>>> device  during this time."
>>>>
>>>> What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that
>>>> it does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during
>>>> the  hours you have said it should?
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are
>>> 24/7/365 and that is not available.
>>
>>
>> You can set active hours for an 18 hour window, and it won't reboot
>> during those hours.
>>
>> I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for
>> practical help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important
>> court trial.
>
> I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
>

"I had goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3

[GB]

On 15/01/2024 15:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/01/2024 in message <xn0ognn2...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
>> If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even
>> possible.
>
> Just to close this off I have re-installed Win 8.1 and transferred and
> activated all the apps that needed it so I have what I need, even found
> an old copy of Brave which I think I will stick with as somehow it
> manages to hide its ad-blocker which extensions don't seem able to.
>
> Happy and safe computing to all, I will do my best to meet my social
> responsibilities to those who think I should  :-)
>

Is Win 8.1 still getting security updates? I thought those ended a year ago?

[Jeff Gaines]

Sorry, I didn't realise you only read the first line of posts! Try reading
it all?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Indecision is the key to flexibility

[GB]

"Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where
is Mike Linn when you need him?).

If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even
possible. "

You've had lots of excellent suggestions that didn't involve turning off
updates. You have chosen a truly awful option, ie installing win 8.1,
which is no longer supported. So, there are no updates, and you didn't
need to turn them off.


"Windows 8.1 support ended on January 10, 2023
As a reminder, Windows 8.1 has reached end of support on January 10,
2023. At this point technical assistance and software updates will no
longer be provided. If you have devices running Windows 8.1, we
recommend upgrading them to a more current, in-service, and supported
Windows release. If devices do not meet the technical requirements to
run a more current release of Windows, we recommend that you replace the
device with one that supports Windows 11.

Microsoft will not be offering an Extended Security Update (ESU) program
for Windows 8.1. Continuing to use Windows 8.1 after January 10, 2023
may increase an organization’s exposure to security risks or impact its
ability to meet compliance obligations."

[Jeff Gaines]

On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3t2d$119rm$1...@dont-email.me> GB wrote:

>>>>>I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for practical
>>>>>help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important  court
>>>>>trial.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"I had goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks
>>>and just cannot risk losing data. "
>>
>>Sorry, I didn't realise you only read the first line of posts! Try
>>reading it all?
>>
>"Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is
>Mike Linn when you need him?).
>
>If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even
>possible. "
>
>
>You've had lots of excellent suggestions that didn't involve turning off
>updates. You have chosen a truly awful option, ie installing win 8.1,
>which is no longer supported. So, there are no updates, and you didn't
>need to turn them off.

I haven't had a single suggestion that fits in with the way I work, not
through lack of effort but because that's how Win 10 works now.

>"Windows 8.1 support ended on January 10, 2023

Then hopefully intrusive update won't be a problem.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

[RJH]

On 14 Jan 2024 at 23:45:44 GMT, Daniel James wrote:

>> Save time booting, in the main. And possibly save some stress on certain
>> components?
>
> If your time is *that* precious why not pay someone to turn the PC on
> before you need it :-)
>

Oh I would if they'd take the couple of quid a year it costs to sleep it :-)

> I don't think the thermal stress on components differs a lot between
> sleep and standby.

Probably. ISTR some saying the largest stress is during power on/off. But I
really couldn't say.

[Daniel James]

On 15/01/2024 15:49, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> It may help if you actually read my OP before posting patronising >
> bollocks.

I *did* read your OP. You were talking about turning updates off
altogether ...

I'm sorry if you felt patronized. That wasn't my intention.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[GB]

But, you are wide open to malware, so it clearly wasn't your intention
to make your system as stable as possible before the court case. You'd
have been far better off instal;ling linux, and that was one of the
suggested options.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 16/01/2024 in message <uo5m12$1ctmk$1...@dont-email.me> GB wrote:

>>>"Windows 8.1 support ended on January 10, 2023
>>
>>Then hopefully intrusive update won't be a problem.
>>
>
>But, you are wide open to malware, so it clearly wasn't your intention to
>make your system as stable as possible before the court case. You'd have
>been far better off instal;ling linux, and that was one of the suggested
>options.

The objective, which I thought I had made clear, was to prevent Windows
from re-booting my PC without my permission, seems a reasonable objective.
However it is unobtainable on Win 10 at the level it is installed on my PCs.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

If Björn & Benny had been called Syd and Dave then ABBA would have been
called ASDA.

[Philip Herlihy]

In article <xn0oguz7...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines wrote...

>
> On 14/01/2024 in message
> <MPG.400e33573...@news.eternal-september.org> Philip Herlihy
> wrote:
>
> >I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a machine
> >holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised (and
> >indignant)
> >when the standard updating process kicks in. It is indeed standard - it's
> >been
> >doing this for years on end, and little has changed about it.
>
> Changing from asking if it's OK to install then asking if it's OK to
> re-boot is rather an extreme change from just installing and re-booting
> with no warning surely?

I've been using the same W10 (Pro) machine for years on end, and I don't
remember things being any different.

I'm notified at least daily that there's something to update (often a Windows
Defender signature update). It doesn't download until I tell it to. (I
configured this so long ago I simply don't remember how I did that - may have
been using the Group Policy editor or a registry setting)**. I have my machine
set ("Advanced Options") to "Restart this device as soon as possible..." and
"Show a notification when your PC requires a restart.." because that way I get
the option quite quickly to delay the installation/reboot I invited by
triggering the download. If I delay it, then the Start button provides options
to shut down or restart with or without updating. If I wish, I can pause
updates for up to 35 days ("Advanced Options"). Most updates don't require a
restart - maybe two a month (often in the same batch).

If you (were) on W10 home you have less options than you do on Pro.

**I tracked down how I configured updates on my machine. Using Group Policy
Editor, navigate to:
Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows
Update

There are a whole raft of options there. I've used the "Configure Automatic
Updates" setting 2 "Notify for download and Automatic Install" - that means
nothing starts until I trigger the download offered. You may like to consider
option 4, where it's fully automatic, but you can specify the time and day of
the month for this to happen. Some care is needed; it isn't always clear in
the documentation whether options apply to Windows 10, but both of these do.
There is also a setting "No auto-restart with logged on users for scheduled
automatic updates installations" - this does apply to W10.

So, if you're on Pro, you have loads of options. Even on Home (I checked) you
can delay all updates for up to 35 days. What you can't change is that Windows
will need an occasional update. To paraphrase a very successful campaign:
"Windows needs occasional reboots for security purposes - get over it."

Ultimately, though, if you persist in leaving important data in volatile memory
without saving it, something's going to spoil your day eventually.

--

Phil, London

[Jeff Gaines]

On 16/01/2024 in message
<MPG.401094224...@news.eternal-september.org> Philip Herlihy
wrote:

>I've been using the same W10 (Pro) machine for years on end, and I don't
>remember things being any different.

I am on Win Pro as I use RDP all the time. How it used to work is as you
described but I don't know how you've managed to keep it running like that!

I have tried all the registry hacks and managed to stop updates - it
doesn't seem to obey those instructions any more so I suspect I just broke
it.

>**I tracked down how I configured updates on my machine. Using Group
>Policy
>Editor, navigate to:
>Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows
>Update
>
>There are a whole raft of options there. I've used the "Configure
>Automatic
>Updates" setting 2 "Notify for download and Automatic Install" - that means
>nothing starts until I trigger the download offered.

Presumably using gpedit.msc?

Option 2 didn't work for me but I no longer have a working Win10 Pro PC to
check, Win 8.1 Pro is working on what is temporarily my main PC and the
first install on my new build is doing its post install update, it look as
it it will run 8.1 OK which would be good.

>Ultimately, though, if you persist in leaving important data in volatile
>memory
>without saving it, something's going to spoil your day eventually.

Since my (then) new girl friend spent 3 hours typing a program into my Vic
20 while I was at work and on returning home I just ran it meaning she did
the same the following day (whereupon I saved it on the squeaky cassette
recorder before running it) I have never made that mistake again.

I do leave loads of programs all the time and the machines back up
overnight, perhaps I should write an app to keep a log of what's running :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
(Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)

[Philip Herlihy]

In article <xn0ogwbx...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines wrote...

>
> On 16/01/2024 in message
> <MPG.401094224...@news.eternal-september.org> Philip Herlihy
> wrote:
>

...

>
> >**I tracked down how I configured updates on my machine. Using Group
> >Policy
> >Editor, navigate to:
> >Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows
> >Update
> >
> >There are a whole raft of options there. I've used the "Configure
> >Automatic
> >Updates" setting 2 "Notify for download and Automatic Install" - that means
> >nothing starts until I trigger the download offered.
>
> Presumably using gpedit.msc?
>

Yes.

...

>
> >Ultimately, though, if you persist in leaving important data in volatile
> >memory
> >without saving it, something's going to spoil your day eventually.
>
> Since my (then) new girl friend spent 3 hours typing a program into my Vic
> 20 while I was at work and on returning home I just ran it meaning she did
> the same the following day (whereupon I saved it on the squeaky cassette
> recorder before running it) I have never made that mistake again.
>
> I do leave loads of programs all the time and the machines back up
> overnight, perhaps I should write an app to keep a log of what's running :-)

As a student in the 80's I once spent all day from 9am to 6pm coding on the
departmental Commodore PET, until the lab technician flicked a switch and the
whole day's work was gone. I won't make that mistake again!

--

Phil, London

[Theo]

Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 10:41, Theo wrote:
> >> I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when
> >> it's perfectly possible to turn it off
> [snip]
> >
> > Because sleep preserves what you were doing on the desktop, whereas
> > turning it off comes back with a clean desktop.
>
> That's a difference between our attitudes and our workflows. When I come
> to the PC in the morning I *WANT* a clean desktop. There's no guarantee
> that I'm going to be working on the same things as I was the day before,
> nor that I could remember what all those windows were open for anyway.

Indeed, different strokes etc. For me the things that are open is the short
term working set, ie an aide memoire of some task not yet completed. For
example, when buying insurance you might want several tabs of insurance
sites open at once. If you haven't found what you're looking for then you
might have to pause the activity and pick up later at another time.

Once the insurance is bought you can close all the tabs. Meanwhile you can
do other things in another set of tabs and keep the insurance ones open
until you have time to go back to it.

> > Even the MacOS way of remembering what was open only half works - you
> > lose state in web pages which don't always come back (eg pages that
> > you were served by submitting a form don't reload properly) ...
>
> I close my browser down completely several times during the working day.
> I do this because the browser is configured to delete all cookies when
> closed, and I don't want cookies to persist any longer than necessary.
>
> The idea that something I was looking at in a browser yesterday might
> have any relevance to what I'm doing today strikes me as odd. If I want
> to revisit a page I'll bookmark it (I have a lot of bookmarks) and if I
> think the page may chance I'll scrape it.

Often bookmarks don't cut it - eg for insurance, you want the quote up in
front of you. You don't want the front page of the insurer which is where a
bookmark will inevitably take you because the link doesn't resubmit the
form. And a screenshot of the page doesn't help if you want to go back and
tweak the cover.

(yes there is a 'saved quote' function in this specific example, but other
kinds of sites don't offer equivalent functionality)

And bookmarks are a pretty awful way of saving state IMHO - just a link,
nothing more. In my insurance example I might want a list of data, eg:

insuredirect.com: £234 third party, £250 excess
insure4u.com: £456 comprehensive, £0 excess

- while I may make separate notes like this, just keeping the tabs open and
flicking between them has a similar effect with zero effort.

> Some people were less attentive to the need to update, which is why
> automatic updates are now forced on the user, and reboots can happen at
> inopportune times.

Really the problem is the way the Windows filesystem is broken and so many
updates can't happen without a reboot. On Linux most updates happen and you
wouldn't even notice them, with kernel updates requiring reboot being rare
(and even then you're only nagged). It's frustrating that Microsoft has put
so little effort into making updates without rebooting, fixing their
filesystem as needed.

Theo

[Andy Burns]

Theo wrote:

> Daniel James wrote:
>
>> That's a difference between our attitudes and our workflows. When I come
>> to the PC in the morning I *WANT* a clean desktop. There's no guarantee
>> that I'm going to be working on the same things as I was the day before,
>> nor that I could remember what all those windows were open for anyway.
>
> Indeed, different strokes etc. For me the things that are open is the short
> term working set, ie an aide memoire of some task not yet completed. For
> example, when buying insurance you might want several tabs of insurance
> sites open at once. If you haven't found what you're looking for then you
> might have to pause the activity and pick up later at another time.
>
> Once the insurance is bought you can close all the tabs. Meanwhile you can
> do other things in another set of tabs and keep the insurance ones open
> until you have time to go back to it.

I use several virtual desktops to "partition" my tasks, one desktop for
work, one for personal which at this time of year will have tax return
stuff on it, usuallyy one for whoever is my primary customer at the
moment, etc ...

[Abandoned Trolley]

>
> I use several virtual desktops to "partition" my tasks, one desktop for
> work, one for personal which at this time of year will have tax return
> stuff on it, usuallyy one for whoever is my primary customer at the
> moment, etc ...
>
>
>

You mean Virtual Desktops ? - or Virtual Machines ?

I imagine you can run Win 8.1 in a VM

[Andy Burns]

Abandoned Trolley wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I use several virtual desktops to "partition" my tasks
>

> You mean Virtual Desktops ? - or Virtual Machines ?

Desktops, create via Win+Tab then switch with Ctrl+Win+Arrows