Windows 10 April Update blocked for some Intel SSD models

[Saracen]

To be fair Saracen we don't have much control over what updates get installed on Windows 7 either these days, since Microsoft in their infinite wisdom decided to roll most updates into single patches the "what" it fixes part is normally a standard boilerplate, about the only control we have is when something something gets patched.

In my eyes Microsoft have basically turned themselves into a inferior amalgam of Apple and Google.

Well, depends how you look at it.

I had auto-updates off. Totally off. Nothing, but NOTHING got installed without my say-so. I also had 'dial-home disabled', though not for the reason people often do that.

HOWEVER ..... I kept a very watchful eye on security patches, critical updates, etc.

Then, I install what I want to install, when it suits me.

One implication of that is the transference of responsibility for not having things fully patched to me. I take control, so I bear the responsibility if I get bitten by not having something installed.

See, my attitude is it's MY machine, not Microsofts. So I decide what, when and if something gets installed. It means committing MY time to keeping up with what's going on, but it also means I can ignore updates for things I don't, and probably never have used, and may even have stripped out.

But most critically it means I control WHEN system updates are done.

And how.

My normal technique was to leave all but critical updates, and then have a patch-Saturday periodically, during which I'd :-

1) Image an OS drive to an identical (make/model/size) "COPY" drive kept for this purpose
2) Remove "Master" drive.
3) Insert "Master COPY"
4) Run updates.
5) Test to see if it screwed up anything critical?
6) Only when comprehensively satisfied on 5) do I update "Master" .... and only after having backed up all data and imaged previous version, just in case.

As I say, my machine, my choice, my responsibility.


Do I recommend this for Joe Average User? Hell, no.

But by MS effectively blocking me from preventing THEM deciding what and when to update, at the drop of some MS drone's hat, they take control away from me, and utterly prevent me from controlling HOW I update.

So i don't agree, I'm afraid. I USED to have complete control. Now I have (or would if I'd migrated to W10) little or no control. And THAT is a deal-killer, a red line, a total non-starter and MS blew past it.

I understand why They wanted a homogenous userbase. It simplifies updates, patches and general developnent no end. Trouble is, it presumes THEY have the right to dictate not only what, but how, and more or less when. And that is one whopping great MS presumption (among many) too far. Way, way, WAY
too far.

[Saracen]

I have full control over my Windows updates because I physically went to the effort to turn off all the switches using registry changes and local policy settings. I review them every time I update.

Considering some people here go through far more effort for far smaller things, I'm surprised that's a problem.

I get you, but as far as I'm concerned, it's about mindset.

Had MS put an option, as we used to have, to disable auto-updates, fair enough.

But mucking about with the registry on that scale is a step too far, given that MS can change what, when and how they do things, so I'd have to go through the whole process, every single time I update, to be sure they haven't defaulted something back.

Which speaks to mindset. They tried, and tried HARD to prevent users controlling their own machine. Thrir mindset is that as it's their OS, they get to mske these decisions. And no, I paid for the hardware, and the OS, so I'll determine when and if changes are made.

It's like buying a new sofa and havinv furniture company come in and rearrange the layout of my lounge, not to mention painting the walls a colour I don't like. And doing it when I'm not there, without asking first.

Also, as I said in my first post, it's ONE important, but far from the only, reason for not migrating. Overal, it was a number of things, over quite a long period, all of which testified to that "mindset". To, if you like, an overall direction of corporate travel, suggesting a direction I wasn't interested in.

[3dcandy]

I must be in the minority and don't really care about the updates or the "snooping"

[kompukare]

Don't forget that as well as Operating System updates, Windows 10 also likes to 'update' your hardware drivers. And that sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Allegedly you're supposed to be able to disable that, but that didn't work for me.
For me, ATM, the problem this cause is not mission critical just very, very annoying.
Let me explain, I have a ThinkPad T540p where Lenovo in their infinite wisdom decided to drop the hardware buttons for the TrackPoint and TrackPad making the TrackPoint totally unusable. I found a 3rd party on ebay who sell a replacement with physical hardware buttons, but unfortunately it uses the hardware ID of the original button-less one. The generic drivers work fine, but Windows keeps deciding to update the drivers despite me telling it to leave it alone.
Like I said, for me at the moment just very very annoying, but imagine the driver was something mission-critical and each time you started the PC Windows had decided to update the drivers...

[Corky34]

....But most critically it means I control WHEN system updates are done....

It's not the when that i take issue with as as others have pointed out we can disable updates and postpone them, even though that's a bit more of a PITA with Windows 10 it's still doable, the biggest issue for me (others undoubtedly disagree) is the lack of control over what gets installed, it's either install that months cumulative update or don't, i miss the days of individual patches for each issue and actually knowing what was being patched instead of being told it's security updates to *insert list of windows software here* without any details on what the security issue was.

[satrow]

MS Answers confirmation that it's the Intel SSD 600p Series or Intel SSD Pro 6000p Series affected.

[Saracen]

It's not the when that i take issue with as as others have pointed out we can disable updates and postpone them, even though that's a bit more of a PITA with Windows 10 it's still doable, the biggest issue for me (others undoubtedly disagree) is the lack of control over what gets installed, it's either install that months cumulative update or don't, i miss the days of individual patches for each issue and actually knowing what was being patched instead of being told it's security updates to *insert list of windows software here* without any details on what the security issue was.

Postpone, but not prevent .... except, as I understand it, on Enterprise versions. Thing is, I have quite a few machines here (home lab/office). Over a dozen .... though several are on legacy OSs anyway. Others are configured to drive sdpecifuc hardware and/or software. But some don't get used for weeks on end, then are needed for a couple of hours for a specific and often urgent job .... for a client. Last thing I need is MS deciding to "update now", or that I've 'postponed' for too long.

As I said, MY machines, and MY job to determine what gets changed, when, how and for that matter, why. The presumption of MS is that THEY can determibe when my machine gets updated, how, and on what grounds. It's not their flipping machines.

In fact, I seem to remember that "makjng unauthorised changes" to any computer system, or causing it to do things, without authorisation is a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act. And MS absolutely DO NOT have permission to go about updating my systems.

I like them deciding how to upgrade my systems about as much as they would if I decided to "'update" every PC in their offices. They'd be furious, no doubt regard it as hacking and probably sic the FBI onto me. Yet, they want to do it to me (and everybody else).

As for drivers I agree, though for me that's part, but only part, of my concern.

[Tabbykatze]

Wonder if their auto updating system is part of their Ts and Cs. Would be worth checking it, Saracen, to validate that level of concern.