And when was this, over a decade ago? Also, what evidence did you have it was the auto-update system that caused the outage? Past performance is not a predictor of future performance.
Seriously folks, turn on auto-updates.
I'll add my voice against this, if you have enough technical knowledge to check more carefully. I too have seen numerous occasions where something installed via Windows Update has taken out a machine and required significant action to restore it to normal functionality. My personal policy has long been security updates only, and even then I tend to do a quick web search before letting them install, which has saved me from the odd howler in the past.
On the other hand, the number of times I have seen a PC rendered inoperable or compromised because it didn't install a Windows update within 24 hours of the update being available is zero. Even if the PC is just a simple home machine, there's probably still at least some sort of firewall/router between it and the public internet, and just about any device like that is going to block unsolicited incoming traffic by default these days. To get compromised within that time frame you'd likely have to actively open something or visit somewhere that included an exploit for a new vulnerability, and while that is always a risk even on a fully patched system, it's not a big one for most people.
Hogwash. If this were true, there wouldn't be the concept of reputation.
there's been a few comments in the wild saying windows 10 can install without your permission. it may even be true, a bug.
so yeah I 'seriously' disagree with you.
https://www.google.de/search?q=crash+tuesday+broken+windows+...
scroll back through the years.
In nearly 100% of all scenarios that I've ever, ever had issues with anything. It's because an update broke something - sometimes irreversibly. Auto-updates are a larger threat factor for me than malware or niche security threats that only attack certain features that I don't utilize (thus I'm not a potential target for that attack vector).
>Past performance is not a predictor of future performance.
In some contexts I agree with you. With programming - I disagree entirely.
Bad programming habits are a great predictor of continued bad programming habits. When the same threat vector pops up again and again in a program it's because the programmer isn't learning from past mistakes. Video game bugs are proof of this.
The first thing many glitchers do on a game I play is test variations of old, patched bugs on new updates to smuggle items out of areas that you shouldn't be able to smuggle items out of. It almost always works. Because the general, underlying problem has not been fixed. They just throw band-aid patches on it after the fact and forget to apply the band-aid patch to future updates, allowing the bug to resurface. The same variations of the same bug have been resurfacing for over a decade now.
Bugs resurface all the time in software, because programming is really tricky to get perfect and humans repeatedly make the same mistakes time and time again.
It isn't the content of the update you should be weary of (make this decision for yourself if you care this much) but it is the act of updating machines that will cause problems.
When a Windows machine updates (yes, even as of today - I had this issue just last week) it is in an indeterminable state until a reboot, even if the update doesn't require a reboot.
Simple reason: if your computer updates it is not in a stable state until a reboot. Simply, your computer may not ask you to reboot after an update, but some software will (eventually, not every time) run very odd until you reboot.
I've seen this happen many, many times on my own machine and on many company machines I've managed.
It's best to install updates when you want to install them.
For company servers, I absolutely agree.
For corporate desktops, the administrators of WSUS (assuming an environment large enough to warrant running it) should approve them for installation after having had a chance to review them. Even so, the desktops should (IMO) be set to automatically install them and reboot once they are available.
For home PCs, just set them to automatically install and reboot and forget about it (n.b.: general rule; obviously there are/will be exceptions).
Personally, my own Windows machines (a grand total of two, running Windows 7 Professional, that are very rarely used), are configured to automatically download and install updates at 11:00 p.m. on Mondays. When an update is released that breaks things, this gives me about six days to hear about it and turn off Windows Updates until they get it fixed (assuming a typical Patch Tuesday release). A long time ago, I reviewed every update before installing them but not anymore. When one of those "drop everything and patch now!" updates comes out, I hear about them elsewhere and install them manually.
I mean, it isn't the end of the world, but your helpdesk will be getting a few calls because your users are refusing reboots!
After the Windows 10 debacle, I'm looking to get off of Windows as soon as I can afford to. Whoever decided to turn Windows Update into an advertising platform needs to be fired -- it's that simple.
Not that I ever plan to run it, but my understanding is that Windows 10 itself, not just Update, is an advertising platform.
Nobody in Vegas is taking odds that someone will be fired. But I'm in full agreement with you. Someone should be fired.
