[FUBAR-BDHR]

Of all the systems I've repaired over the years I'd honestly say that not booting because windows update screwed up is second only to malware for being the cause of the issue.  Disable that damn thing and only manually apply updates after making a full system image.  This is true of not just windows but any software that modifies drivers/networking/etc as well. 

[The E]

I haven't seen that particular case happen post-Vista though. So I kinda doubt that it's actual good advice and more on the lines of that stupid legacy advice that for some reason gets passed down cargo-cult style (Like that "Limit your VRAM" thing that persisted forever).

[Flipside]

It's interesting to see the different experiences people have had with Autoupdate, I've used 'download but don't install' for years, and then allow the updates to take place when I shut down the computer in the evening. I don't think I've ever had the computer fall over during or after one of those updates, but I have heard more than one story of this happening, which is why creating a restore point is so important.

[Lorric]

Of all the systems I've repaired over the years I'd honestly say that not booting because windows update screwed up is second only to malware for being the cause of the issue.  Disable that damn thing and only manually apply updates after making a full system image.  This is true of not just windows but any software that modifies drivers/networking/etc as well.

Looks like a full system image is a Windows 7 thing, and I'm not on Windows 7.

It's interesting to see the different experiences people have had with Autoupdate, I've used 'download but don't install' for years, and then allow the updates to take place when I shut down the computer in the evening. I don't think I've ever had the computer fall over during one of those updates, but I have heard more than one story of this happening, which is why creating a restore point is so important.

I believe that's what mine does, it installs the updates on shutting down. It does say automatic updates are on, but maybe that's only half the story and for some people it installs them while they're working?

So I should create a restore point before installing an update and I'll be okay do you think? It would be a good practice I suppose in general to be manually creating restore points here and there. Although I believe my computer creates restore points automatically before installing stuff anyway. I checked, and it has done before updates, I got an update just two days ago and there's a restore point.

[Klaustrophobia]

windows 7 and i think even my XP laptop automatically creates a restore point before installing updates.  i had automatic updates off for the longest time (and still do on XP), but that's only because i regularly do a manual update check.  i just have a thing about stuff running on my computer automatically.  i would never DREAM of not installing security/resolve issue updates (i.e., the ones labeled "critical").   A single bad update is not worse than leaving your system wide open with vulnerabilities and missing out on stability fixes.

[Mongoose]

I have things set to download but not install immediately, though I usually just install it anyway as soon as the update notice pops up, in order to get it out of the way.  As far as I can remember, I've never had a single issue with an update screwing something up, and as Klaustrophobia said, even XP automatically creates restore points before security updates.  Actually I have one labeled "Software Distribution Service" almost every day of the week, which I'm guessing is Security Essentials updating its definitions, so I'm more than covered.

[Lorric]

I have things set to download but not install immediately, though I usually just install it anyway as soon as the update notice pops up, in order to get it out of the way.  As far as I can remember, I've never had a single issue with an update screwing something up, and as Klaustrophobia said, even XP automatically creates restore points before security updates.  Actually I have one labeled "Software Distribution Service" almost every day of the week, which I'm guessing is Security Essentials updating its definitions, so I'm more than covered.

That's not as much as me, but all but once whenever I've needed the lifesaver that is the system restore, I've had several points per month. I guess I'm safe enough and can carry on as before. Hey, It's worked for about 8 years! 

[Flipside]

So I should create a restore point before installing an update and I'll be okay do you think? It would be a good practice I suppose in general to be manually creating restore points here and there. Although I believe my computer creates restore points automatically before installing stuff anyway. I checked, and it has done before updates, I got an update just two days ago and there's a restore point.

Yup, I think that is automatic now for modern versions of Windows, which, in retrospect, means that there must at the very least been enough concern about problems to include that feature.

[castor]

I too, prefer manual updates, beacause it makes it easier to trace back the cause if/when something breaks.
And well, I generally hate stuff quietly evolving behind my back (to who knows what direction) ..

[Cyker]

Woo! Win2k FTW

*ducks*

But yeah, this is the reason why we vet updates before we let them through; I stopped relying on Windows updates to protect systems a looong time ago. This hype about keeping the system up to date being absolutely essential? It is propaganda meant for people that don't know better.

It doesn't apply to people like us who have been using computers since the Win3.1 days and never been infected because we have brains and don't do stupid things.
It is meant for people that open .zip and .txt.exe attachments and browse the web without adblockers and blacklisting/filtering software.

The hard truth is that a fully up to date system is just as easily infected by malware and crap as a brand new system. The problem isn't the OS, it is the user. Always has been, always will be.

It's much more worthwhile to invest in some decent defense tools; a decent anti-virus (Although picking them out is hard these days; Norton and McAfee are out. AVG is a lot worse than it used to be. MSE seems popular and isn't too resource hungry but really murders disk transfers involving exe's and is no good for 0-day stuff. At work we use Sophos which has saved us many times from user idiocy but it's expensive) and/or anti-malware (malwarebytes' one is worth the small fee imho!).
Filtering at network or browser level is a good defence but needs to be kept up to date.

I must admit I don't use any of this stuff at home aside from malwarebytes and yet have never been infected by anything (Although I must admit I dodged a bullet with conficker as I was still using '98 as my primary OS back then, and it's immune ), which just goes to show - A bit of tech sense and little thought will do way more than any operating system or updates!

[FlamingCobra]

I'm glad I don't have that update.

[Nuke]

Meanwhile, in Nuke's background processes tab.

21 things

of those 6 are programs im running and one is the task manager.
there are also another 8 processes that are hardware related things, i probibly dont need half of them, but i have so few processes up in here that its hard for me to care.
im very thorough about killing services, and i use as little of the os as possible.

Woo! Win2k FTW

*ducks*

But yeah, this is the reason why we vet updates before we let them through; I stopped relying on Windows updates to protect systems a looong time ago. This hype about keeping the system up to date being absolutely essential? It is propaganda meant for people that don't know better.

It doesn't apply to people like us who have been using computers since the Win3.1 days and never been infected because we have brains and don't do stupid things.
It is meant for people that open .zip and .txt.exe attachments and browse the web without adblockers and blacklisting/filtering software.

The hard truth is that a fully up to date system is just as easily infected by malware and crap as a brand new system. The problem isn't the OS, it is the user. Always has been, always will be.

It's much more worthwhile to invest in some decent defense tools; a decent anti-virus (Although picking them out is hard these days; Norton and McAfee are out. AVG is a lot worse than it used to be. MSE seems popular and isn't too resource hungry but really murders disk transfers involving exe's and is no good for 0-day stuff. At work we use Sophos which has saved us many times from user idiocy but it's expensive) and/or anti-malware (malwarebytes' one is worth the small fee imho!).
Filtering at network or browser level is a good defence but needs to be kept up to date.

I must admit I don't use any of this stuff at home aside from malwarebytes and yet have never been infected by anything (Although I must admit I dodged a bullet with conficker as I was still using '98 as my primary OS back then, and it's immune ), which just goes to show - A bit of tech sense and little thought will do way more than any operating system or updates!

this ^

[BloodEagle]

I think what he is saying is please don't make blanket statements without some kind of justification for saying it.

It's fine if you distrust the Windows updates etc, but without some kind of reason for that distrust it comes across simply as paranoia.

Then he could have simply asked me to elaborate, as (he later mentions) he's had a rather blessed experience with the system.

Calling me stupid (or a troll) for giving an opinion different to his own is not okay.  I do not like being baited and antagonized.

--

I've had numerous issues with (auto)updates causing terrible OS instability, including on Windows 7.  I once had an issue where the OS would freeze 30% of the time, after I input log-in information.  This issue survived a complete reformat, so it was likely caused by one of the critical updates.  Fortunately a later update appears to have taken care of this issue, but the fact that it happened in the first place lends credence to being precautionary when it comes to updating.

Make a restore point before doing any update.  Do the updates one at a time.  Only do the critical updates.

[BritishShivans]

oh my ****ing god

did you seriously just start an argument/tangent thing in a thread i made as a heads up

god

you people are truly ****ing awful sometimes

[redsniper]

[Flipside]

Flipsides' Springtime Chest-thump theory in action once-again

[Scourge of Ages]

We do sincerely appreciate the warning, it's just that people tend to get bored with the original topic if they can all agree on it, so we make up tangential stuff and talk about that instead.

In other news: I installed 7 today on my recently rehabbed laptop, watching very carefully for this specific security update, and I don't think it's on the queue any more. MS probably pulled it when the realized the problem.

[Klaustrophobia]

Woo! Win2k FTW

*ducks*

But yeah, this is the reason why we vet updates before we let them through; I stopped relying on Windows updates to protect systems a looong time ago. This hype about keeping the system up to date being absolutely essential? It is propaganda meant for people that don't know better.

It doesn't apply to people like us who have been using computers since the Win3.1 days and never been infected because we have brains and don't do stupid things.
It is meant for people that open .zip and .txt.exe attachments and browse the web without adblockers and blacklisting/filtering software.

The hard truth is that a fully up to date system is just as easily infected by malware and crap as a brand new system. The problem isn't the OS, it is the user. Always has been, always will be.

It's much more worthwhile to invest in some decent defense tools; a decent anti-virus (Although picking them out is hard these days; Norton and McAfee are out. AVG is a lot worse than it used to be. MSE seems popular and isn't too resource hungry but really murders disk transfers involving exe's and is no good for 0-day stuff. At work we use Sophos which has saved us many times from user idiocy but it's expensive) and/or anti-malware (malwarebytes' one is worth the small fee imho!).
Filtering at network or browser level is a good defence but needs to be kept up to date.

I must admit I don't use any of this stuff at home aside from malwarebytes and yet have never been infected by anything (Although I must admit I dodged a bullet with conficker as I was still using '98 as my primary OS back then, and it's immune ), which just goes to show - A bit of tech sense and little thought will do way more than any operating system or updates!

"you don't necessarily have to do it" is VERY different from "you should never do it"

telling people they should not do something that is piss easy and can only help them (seriously, this ONE case of a bad update is nothing to get excited over.  i had it installed for multiple startup/shutdowns and it did nothing) is just not cool.  and FFS, what "propoganda?"  seriously?  what sinister plot is MS up to with it's dastardly updates? 

[Mongoose]

Flipsides' Springtime Chest-thump theory in action once-again

Just like clockwork.  By the same token, goddamn plants having sex all over the air and irritating my eyes.

[Grizzly]

\It's much more worthwhile to invest in some decent defense tools; a decent anti-virus (Although picking them out is hard these days; Norton and McAfee are out. AVG is a lot worse than it used to be. MSE seems popular and isn't too resource hungry but really murders disk transfers involving exe's and is no good for 0-day stuff. At work we use Sophos which has saved us many times from user idiocy but it's expensive) and/or anti-malware (malwarebytes' one is worth the small fee imho!).

Have you tried Avira Antivirus? It's quite decent.