Microsoft rolls out Windows 10 'reliability' patch to fix update-blocking software issues

[cliffordcooley]

The only legit issue people have today is with the fact that it's harder to control when the updates happen

Yep, I had to wait for Windows to update. Before I could connect my tablet to a car for reading trouble codes. The only thing about waiting I'm happy about, is the fact that it didn't take all that long and it did install correctly. But seriously I shouldn't have had to wait to use my machine.

 

[Dimitrios]

Gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Knot Schure]

Resetting network settings is a potential nightmare, especially in scenarios where there are dual NICs set up to allow for inter-LAN bridging scenarios. Having one with no internet access (static IP with no gateway) and one with full network access is not uncommon. Removing custom settings for networking should be a no-go for this.

Phucking ell, my first thoughts exactly.

Try running Win Server, it behaves much better.

 

[captaincranky]

Define "tiny" (on a more serious note: yes, MS needs to make the OS more modular so that updates are smaller - but it's such a behemoth of a code now that it will take a decade to modify).

I'm not sure I follow your logic in this statement. With smaller updates, wouldn't less code have to be written targeting a specific issue?. This is probably what they're doing in house, but I don't understand replacing almost the entire OS to accomplish this. As you put it, "the code is behemoth", which in IMO, they just have to be copying and pasting the modified coding, into the OS as a whole. So obviously a 4 GB "update", isn't a rewrite of the entire OS.

Which brings me to the conclusion that they are not rewriting code which wipes out privacy settings users have made, that M$ was pretending to allow, but merely pasting any new code into an original version, with extant settings of their choosing. Which exactly follows my logic and user's observations, that an "update" wipes out all their settings, and returns them to the stock settings.

What they are doing is pumping more garbage, bells, whistles, and shiny new features into the OS at every opportunity, which most of the informed users, both here and elsewhere, don't seem to really really want

As for the update process... I worked during collage as an administrator for a fairly large school (right about the time windows 7 launched I think) and I literally managed hundreds of PCs of varying ages. That was hell, people are spoiled as to how easy updates are to make now and just how less crash prone they are. When I had an update crash on windows 7 I usually had to reinstall the whole OS or spend hours trying to fix it.

If you were dealing with college general student access machines, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they has an assortment of malware, different from machine to machine, hampering the process..

Since then the updates have become less and less of an issue. If an update doesn't install properly it generally reverts back to the previous state. The only legit issue people have today is with the fact that it's harder to control when the updates happen (or it used to be before the latest windows changes).

I don't know. I still think M$'s press releases have a lot of draconian subtexts, which many of you are ignoring.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Windows 10 is STILL the most stable Windows OS I've EVER used since Windows 2K, so until that changes, M$ and I will continue to be homeboys.

The really weak predictions and undying animosity towards M$ in the comments are always more entertaining than article itself, so I thank you ALL - AGAIN! See you soon!

 

[cliffordcooley]

and undying animosity towards M$ in the comments are always more entertaining

There is nothing funny about our frustrations over an unreliable operating system. Yes Win10 is stable, that is until it updates and reboots. That is where it becomes unreliable. We have to babysit our own machines to keep them running.

 

[hahahanoobs]

There is nothing funny about our frustrations over an unreliable operating system. Yes Win10 is stable, that is until it updates and reboots. That is where it becomes unreliable. We have to babysit our own machines to keep them running.

I get it, and I hope you sent feedback directly to M$.
But the same/new frustrations every year? And you're still using the product? Really?

 

[cliffordcooley]

But the same/new frustrations every year? And you're still using the product? Really?

This may come as a shock to you but the only major frustration I had with Win7 was the planned obsolescence. Many of us have simply been waiting for someone to make Linux a better option for us. Seems no one cares including yourself. I'm not a software developer or I would give it a shot. And as for stability Windows 10 is no better than Windows 7. But Windows 7 is still way more reliable. At least there were options to configure Windows the way you wanted it to work for you. Our continued complaint (and you should be onboard with this as well) is the lack in control of our own machines. But since you don't seem to be onboard. The next time someone's machine is automatically updated and work is lost or fails to boot, you will hold some of the blame.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Our continued complaint (and you should be onboard with this as well) is the lack in control of our own machines. But since you don't seem to be onboard. The next time someone's machine is automatically updated and work is lost or fails to boot, you will hold some of the blame.

After reading what I said above, why the heck would you assume I had an issue with updates breaking my machine?! lol

We've been able to pause/defer updates for a while now, so if that's your main complaint, then, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Dyson Parkes]

We've been able to pause/defer updates for a while now, so if that's your main complaint, then, you're doing it wrong.

In certain industries this is a bit of a no-go. Many updates fix identified security holes in the OS, and in certain industries these must be kept updated in a timely fashion for compliance. Putting off security patches is not an option there.
With no way to nicely allow/deny specific updates (a la Windows 7, with the individual 'hide update' option), the only way to manage it becomes running a full-scale WSUS server - which, again - not always an option, thanks to licensing structures.

If your suggested 'fix' for updates not breaking your setup is to never update... then you're the one doing it wrong.

 

[Shotgunnner]

Resetting network settings. Business clients are going to be overjoyed with this.

 

[cliffordcooley]

We've been able to pause/defer updates for a while now

That is not enough. The updates will still automatically update at the same frequency. The only thing that changes is how soon the user gets them. Again you don't seem to care whether we can turn them off.

 

[hahahanoobs]

In certain industries this is a bit of a no-go. Many updates fix identified security holes in the OS, and in certain industries these must be kept updated in a timely fashion for compliance. Putting off security patches is not an option there.
With no way to nicely allow/deny specific updates (a la Windows 7, with the individual 'hide update' option), the only way to manage it becomes running a full-scale WSUS server - which, again - not always an option, thanks to licensing structures.

If your suggested 'fix' for updates not breaking your setup is to never update... then you're the one doing it wrong.

Industries? You went left somewhere.
Also, not sure how you got "never update" out of "pause/defer."

 

[hahahanoobs]

Again you don't seem to care whether we can turn them off.

lol Again, show me where I said that was an issue for me?

And I just told you you can pause/defer them. The Pro version was the first to have it at launch I believe, so if that's important to you then you should have got the Pro or Enterprise version.

How to Pause and Resume a Windows Update Download in Windows 10
By Vamsi Krishna – Posted on Sep 29, 2016 in Windows
https://www.maketecheasier.com/pause-resume-windows-update/

2016....

 

[Puiu]

I'm not sure I follow your logic in this statement. With smaller updates, wouldn't less code have to be written targeting a specific issue?. This is probably what they're doing in house, but I don't understand replacing almost the entire OS to accomplish this. As you put it, "the code is behemoth", which in IMO, they just have to be copying and pasting the modified coding, into the OS as a whole. So obviously a 4 GB "update", isn't a rewrite of the entire OS.

Which brings me to the conclusion that they are not rewriting code which wipes out privacy settings users have made, that M$ was pretending to allow, but merely pasting any new code into an original version, with extant settings of their choosing. Which exactly follows my logic and user's observations, that an "update" wipes out all their settings, and returns them to the stock settings.

What they are doing is pumping more garbage, bells, whistles, and shiny new features into the OS at every opportunity, which most of the informed users, both here and elsewhere, don't seem to really really want

If you were dealing with college general student access machines, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they has an assortment of malware, different from machine to machine, hampering the process..

I don't know. I still think M$'s press releases have a lot of draconian subtexts, which many of you are ignoring.

Unfortunately you can't just push a small part of the code that was changed for an update. It would make the entire update process so complicated and error prone that it's not worth it.

Versioning doesn't work like that in the majority of the big software companies. Most of the time you will update the entire file, module or even the entire application (in this case the OS). Think of how Github works and you'll understand this better.

I do believe that as the code gets smarter we'll start seeing less and less updates that require system restarts and of smaller sizes. But not today, maybe in 5 years time.

MS should for the moment focus on removing legacy code and improving other aspects of the OS. The update process will change naturally as they modernise the code. Although they will have a monumental task ahead of them if they want to not break the many years of compatibility.

Just so you know MS is indeed working on seamless updates, but not for windows 10 directly. This is what needs to be done to make what you want to work today, starting from zero:
https://www.windowscentral.com/what-microsofts-new-modern-os-all-about

 

[Dyson Parkes]

Industries? You went left somewhere.
Also, not sure how you got "never update" out of "pause/defer."

Industries may not have been the right word entirely. Sectors may work better.
Healthcare is a sector that is increasingly more conscious of security concerns. Security companies, financial institutions, companies running online stores...

Medical sector:
If medical info was leaked due to a breach that would have been patched in an update had it not been deferred, there would be hell to pay. A wonky update can play havoc with internal software, so does IT force the fix and break compatibility on potentially hundreds of machines, or wait until an amended update is pushed and hope nobody exploits the hole that the update is patching in the meantime?

Financial sector (hypothetical):
I deal with numbers and payments all day. Stock market is pretty volatile, I can't afford major downtime while my PC is playing silly buggers after a bad update. Ah, dammit. Someone stole sensitive financial data through a hole that would have been fixed if I didn't click 'defer'.
"If it was that serious why didn't the administrator force it through?!"
*IT forces it*
"You lost me valuable trading time! It can't have been that serious! That was worth millions!"

Online store front:
If staff workstations break due to updates and they don't see that an order was placed, they don't ship it. Bad reviews = potentially decreased business = potential closure.

The military:
Oh wait. These guys still have workstations running 3.0 in some places.



The point is, sometimes there are policies that you have to comply with that mean you simply can't defer updates. Some of them require updates go through rigorous testing prior to release. Some hardware requires specific driver versions (which MS now tries to replace via update, even if you manually specify the driver version). Sometimes an update to 'fix' a problem exposes a dozen other problems.
Being unable to ignore certain updates directly or apply specific ones manually without having to do some WSUS trickery or CLI/PS instructions to identify and remove individual updates is a step backwards from Microsoft, in my eyes (and many others in the IT field).

 

[hahahanoobs]

OTE="Dyson Parkes, post: 1765379, member: 326611"]Industries may not have been the right word entirely. Sectors may work better.
Healthcare is a sector that is increasingly more conscious of security concerns. Security companies, financial institutions, companies running online stores...

Medical sector:
If medical info was leaked due to a breach that would have been patched in an update had it not been deferred, there would be hell to pay. A wonky update can play havoc with internal software, so does IT force the fix and break compatibility on potentially hundreds of machines, or wait until an amended update is pushed and hope nobody exploits the hole that the update is patching in the meantime?

Financial sector (hypothetical):
I deal with numbers and payments all day. Stock market is pretty volatile, I can't afford major downtime while my PC is playing silly buggers after a bad update. Ah, dammit. Someone stole sensitive financial data through a hole that would have been fixed if I didn't click 'defer'.
"If it was that serious why didn't the administrator force it through?!"
*IT forces it*
"You lost me valuable trading time! It can't have been that serious! That was worth millions!"

Online store front:
If staff workstations break due to updates and they don't see that an order was placed, they don't ship it. Bad reviews = potentially decreased business = potential closure.

The military:
Oh wait. These guys still have workstations running 3.0 in some places.



The point is, sometimes there are policies that you have to comply with that mean you simply can't defer updates. Some of them require updates go through rigorous testing prior to release. Some hardware requires specific driver versions (which MS now tries to replace via update, even if you manually specify the driver version). Sometimes an update to 'fix' a problem exposes a dozen other problems.
Being unable to ignore certain updates directly or apply specific ones manually without having to do some WSUS trickery or CLI/PS instructions to identify and remove individual updates is a step backwards from Microsoft, in my eyes (and many others in the IT field).[/QUOTE]

*sigh*
No, no, no.
Reading can't be this hard...

 

[Dyson Parkes]

*sigh*
No, no, no.
Reading can't be this hard...

I'm aware that you're not saying to just not update.
You seem to be having trouble grasping that for some of us, in certain places, even deferral isn't allowable.
For some of us we have to apply security patches immediately (or as close to as is possible) in order to maintain compliance with mandates. With the new update mechanism we don't have the option to update one but not the other, like we used to be able to do. Windows 7, for example, split recommended and optional updates apart. It allowed us to run a specific 5 out of 30 rather than having to do all or nothing, as is the current setup.
And yes, we can defer major build updates - at the expense of normal updates. And build updates are the ones that tend to be the biggest pain to manage.

So, again - we've gone backwards in the level of control IT have over managing our fleet of machines in any given environment because Joe Public just doesn't update, so M$ just made it mandatory. And even the enterprise version of W10 still doesn't give that control back.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I'm aware that you're not saying to just not update.
You seem to be having trouble grasping that for some of us, in certain places, even deferral isn't allowable.
For some of us we have to apply security patches immediately (or as close to as is possible) in order to maintain compliance with mandates. With the new update mechanism we don't have the option to update one but not the other, like we used to be able to do. Windows 7, for example, split recommended and optional updates apart. It allowed us to run a specific 5 out of 30 rather than having to do all or nothing, as is the current setup.
And yes, we can defer major build updates - at the expense of normal updates. And build updates are the ones that tend to be the biggest pain to manage.

So, again - we've gone backwards in the level of control IT have over managing our fleet of machines in any given environment because Joe Public just doesn't update, so M$ just made it mandatory. And even the enterprise version of W10 still doesn't give that control back.

That's unfortunate, I agree, but I still stand by my original comment about sending your feedback to the proper channels instead of posting them where they are not helpful.

 

[cliffordcooley]

but I still stand by my original comment about sending your feedback to the proper channels

If it would help I'm sure many of us would.

 

[Dyson Parkes]

That's unfortunate, I agree, but I still stand by my original comment about sending your feedback to the proper channels instead of posting them where they are not helpful.

Many of us have submitted feedback, including myself.
I've reached out via the Microsoft Partner Network (which I'm part of). I've submitted feedback via the 'feedback' app as part of the Windows Insider program. I've spoken to a few members of the dev team, and several other Partners as well. I have no doubt that other people have done the same (in fact I know a number who have). The problem is that as feedback continues to be ignored, less of us can be bothered with it - it seems like it won't help. So we comment on things like this article, because M$ does have a PR and media team who watch what's said about them to try and mitigate any major issues, and we hope faintly that someone will see the disgruntlement and raise an issue internally.

Mostly, though, we just grumble about how good it was 'back in the day'.

 

[bolski]

KB4023057 was installed on my machine August 1st of this year. I still cannot get upgraded to 1803. This happens with each and every major upgrade to Windows 10. All I can do is back up my data, do a clean install of the latest version and then I'm good until the next major upgrade. Yes, my machine is old (AMD Phenom II X3 720BE with 4th core unlocked) but it works. And if the newer upgrades are not applying because my machine is too old, then please explain why when I do a clean install of the newest version of Windows 10, it works?
This is all on Microsoft. It's getting old. And I see this at work as well with our newer machines. The "your machine is too old" quip is just an excuse. Why do I say that? Because Microsoft has already stated that if your machine cannot handle an upgrade, they'll tell you so and it won't get queued up for your machine to be applied. If that's true, then I shouldn't be seeing the 1803 upgrade in my queue.
Also, the fact that they FORCE me to have to take it eventually with only having the ability to delay it for a set period of time is aggravating at so many levels. If my machine is too old for the upgrade, then let me tell them to stop nagging me to apply it. Every day now, it keeps telling me it has pending updates to apply and I need to reboot and asks when I want to do it. I've already gone past the maximum amount of to put this upgrade off as this 1803 is from last year apparently. How about I just put it on hold for however long I want? It won't install, so quit bugging me about it.

 

[DelJo63]

Define "tiny" (on a more serious note: yes, MS needs to make the OS more modular so that updates are smaller - but it's such a behemoth of a code now that it will take a decade to modify).

The Microsoft system software has more lines of code than the Big Blue IBM mainframe :glup: