How did you clean up/ debloat windows 10?

[apis]

If hardware fails it's not a Windows failure. I haven't seen it happening in large amounts of mundane or very complicated use cases, so I suspect it's a PEBKAC issue. The same applies to updates. If you know what you're doing, they shouldn't bother you. If you don't know what you're doing, Microsoft is doing you a favour by making sure your system is updated and protected. Now, I'm definitely not saying there haven't been issues in the past where Microsoft opted for a much too intrusive approach. Their current approach seems to work reasonably well, although I would personally prefer the traditional Windows update style and level of control. Most users seem to think updates are a nuisance and I see how some need the encouragement to do what's in their best interest.

The problem was that there were too many windows computers that were never updated. That led to a lot of problems with computer worms and spammers that exploited security vulnerabilities that had been patched many years ago and could have been prevented if only the end users installed security updates. I understand they decided to make updates install automatically by default (they should have done that a long time ago), but that they don't even give you an option to postpone updates that literally took hours to install (during which time the computer is unusable) makes no sense. Based on my own experience, the reason it took so long was because I didn't use windows often, it was not because I didn't know what I was doing, It just took forever to install the backlog of updates and windows gives you no option to postpone it.

A root file system corruption sounds like a hardware problem to me. How well the computer recover from a hardware failure is a OS problem I would say. The average uptime for Linux servers is usually reported to be significantly better than that for windows. The difference is probably (hopefully) less than what it used to be, but I believe it is still true. A well configured Linux server can run for many years without the need to reboot. So stability wise I would argue linux is better. But it depends on your setup. ZFS on FUSE was not stable. Linux lets you do whatever you want as administrator. If you install experimental software features, that is really user error, not an os problem.

[hwj-d]

I was under the impression that Windows 7 can't be installed on anything newer than 6 series/Skylake boards, and even then the lack of USB 3.0 drivers is a problem. If it can be done, then I'm building a new machine.

Yes. That's what i've learned now.

[Mr. Scram]

The problem was that there were too many windows computers that were never updated. That led to a lot of problems with computer worms and spammers that exploited security vulnerabilities that had been patched many years ago and could have been prevented if only the end users installed security updates. I understand they decided to make updates install automatically by default (they should have done that a long time ago), but that they don't even give you an option to postpone updates that literally took hours to install (during which time the computer is unusable) makes no sense. Based on my own experience, the reason it took so long was because I didn't use windows often, it was not because I didn't know what I was doing, It just took forever to install the backlog of updates and windows gives you no option to postpone it.

A root file system corruption sounds like a hardware problem to me. How well the computer recover from a hardware failure is a OS problem I would say. The average uptime for Linux servers is usually reported to be significantly better than that for windows. The difference is probably (hopefully) less than what it used to be, but I believe it is still true. A well configured Linux server can run for many years without the need to reboot. So stability wise I would argue linux is better. But it depends on your setup. ZFS on FUSE was not stable. Linux lets you do whatever you want as administrator. If you install experimental software features, that is really user error, not an os problem.

Few updates take hours and those that do are largely installed in the background. The big ones are typically the feature updates and those are largely installed as you work, with an occasional reboot required at a time you can pick. Feature updates only occur every half year and can be postponed long enough to be installed once every year or less. You won't miss essential security features. I've noticed a lot of people who complain are those who use their computers infrequently and subsequently get confronted with updates almost every time they use their computer. That's effectively the worst case scenario for updates. It could be mitigated by some automation, but few people in that situation will know how or want to spend the effort.

Uptime used to be cool when IT wasn't very mature. Showing off with your uptime is likely to get you an eye-roll and points deducted for not really understanding the mechanics of modern computing. Uptime is meaningless when the press of a button deploys 20 new servers and culls another 30. In more traditional settings Windows Servers can go for months without reboots. They're generally only rebooted after installing an update. Linux servers also require a reboot after a kernel update, which should admittedly happen less often than regular updates.

[apis]

I've noticed a lot of people who complain are those who use their computers infrequently and subsequently get confronted with updates almost every time they use their computer. That's effectively the worst case scenario for updates. It could be mitigated by some automation, but few people in that situation will know how or want to spend the effort.

Updates often had to be installed sequentially so it took a long time even if small, and they often had to be installed when rebooting (i.e. making the computer unusable while they were installed). They did download in the background though. Sometimes they also failed installing, and after having spent a long time upgrading, windows reverted the upgrade before finally booting. Next time windows update ran it tried installing the same broken update again. There are also many occasions when you can't postpone a reboot, especially if you are dual booting with another OS. It makes no sense to have to use windows often to avoid having the computer unusable, spending many hours updating.

Uptime used to be cool when IT wasn't very mature. Showing off with your uptime is likely to get you an eye-roll and points deducted for not really understanding the mechanics of modern computing. Uptime is meaningless when the press of a button deploys 20 new servers and culls another 30. In more traditional settings Windows Servers can go for months without reboots. They're generally only rebooted after installing an update.

Uptime gives an indication of stability. Linux still dominates the server market, that has to mean something. Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say Linux is less stable.
This is turning into a my favourite os vs your favourite os debate which are usually not productive, so let's leave it at that.

Linux servers also require a reboot after a kernel update, which should admittedly happen less often than regular updates.

Actually, not any more
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/no-reboot-kernel-patching-and-why-you-should-care
 

[rdl]

Personally I tend to look on "end of support" for Windows 7 as little more than a scare tactic. I'm sure that in some situations, for some people, it may be important. For me, it is pretty much irrelevant. My "entertainment" machine which is used almost 100% for games, movies, music, and youtube has been running 15 months since the last time I installed Windows 7 and no updates have been installed during that time. The service is disabled.

I was going to build a Skylake machine at one time, but the performance improvement over my existing system would have been pretty small for the effort and cost, so I bought a better video card instead. Currently games are designed for consoles that my computer keeps up with pretty well. Eventually that will change. Sooner or later I'll need to build a new computer. The thought of putting Windows 10 on it is disheartening. I don't like the idea of constantly being at war with Microsoft just to play games. An alternative would be to put the Windows 10 machine on a separate network all by itself and only turn it on to play games. That seems terribly wasteful to me though.

[Mr. Scram]

Updates often had to be installed sequentially so it took a long time even if small, and they often had to be installed when rebooting (i.e. making the computer unusable while they were installed). They did download in the background though. Sometimes they also failed installing, and after having spent a long time upgrading, windows reverted the upgrade before finally booting. Next time windows update ran it tried installing the same broken update again. There are also many occasions when you can't postpone a reboot, especially if you are dual booting with another OS. It makes no sense to have to use windows often to avoid having the computer unusable, spending many hours updating.

Uptime gives an indication of stability. Linux still dominates the server market, that has to mean something. Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say Linux is less stable.
This is turning into a my favourite os vs your favourite os debate which are usually not productive, so let's leave it at that.

Actually, not any more

Updates taking longer than a couple of handfuls of seconds upon reboot are rare, and they never take what could be considered a long time unless you've not installed updates for quite a while. "Many hours" doesn't happen in anything remotely resembling a regular scenario. Uptime isn't a measure of stability if servers are rebooted for the sake of updates. Stability means servers behave as expected when left unattended and that's not an issue on either platform. I've seen Windows Server deployments with uptimes of months or years. You don't want to omit updates that long, but you can if you please.

I'm in no way saying that Linux is less stable and certainly am not stupid enough to advocate one OS over another. Use whatever OS suits your use case and experience. My favourite OS is the one that gets the job done somewhat effectively. You need to have very little of value in your life if you go to war over an OS. There just seems to be a lot of outdated or outright untrue nonsense being spouted on the web and correcting it may help some people make more suitable choices.

[Mr. Scram]

Personally I tend to look on "end of support" for Windows 7 as little more than a scare tactic. I'm sure that in some situations, for some people, it may be important. For me, it is pretty much irrelevant. My "entertainment" machine which is used almost 100% for games, movies, music, and youtube has been running 15 months since the last time I installed Windows 7 and no updates have been installed during that time. The service is disabled.

I was going to build a Skylake machine at one time, but the performance improvement over my existing system would have been pretty small for the effort and cost, so I bought a better video card instead. Currently games are designed for consoles that my computer keeps up with pretty well. Eventually that will change. Sooner or later I'll need to build a new computer. The thought of putting Windows 10 on it is disheartening. I don't like the idea of constantly being at war with Microsoft just to play games. An alternative would be to put the Windows 10 machine on a separate network all by itself and only turn it on to play games. That seems terribly wasteful to me though.

It's not a scare tactic. Security updates are an important part of what keeps your computer safe when online. Computer crime has become an industry and known vulnerabilities are neatly developed into easy to use software packages to be sold to less capable criminals to use. After a short while, every kid with a credit card can purchase software which is able to exploit the known vulnerabilities in your system and ruins your day. I do agree that the whole Windows thing has become a battle with Microsoft. They've shown to put their interests above those of the users and this unfortunately means having to stay vigilant and continuously scanning for the next trick they're trying to pull. As much as I dislike it, the Windows 10 model is here to stay and eventually it'll be the only Windows platform option left.

[james_s]

No, it really is a scare tactic, and people like you parrot it as if it's gospel. Meanwhile I have years of actual experience cleaning up infected machines and every one of those became infected because the user installed something. *Every* one of them. Didn't matter if they were fully updated or not, the user is by far the biggest security hole.

Now for public facing servers, yes security updates are absolutely critical, but for a typical home PC that is sitting behind a router it just isn't that important, there are numerous small obstacles to exploiting them and typically it just doesn't happen. A couple months ago after a similar debate I actually fired up an old XP laptop connected to my home wifi and let it sit there, after about a week I got bored waiting for someone to p@wn it and shut it down. It's going to take a few exploits to change my mind because so far I've never seen it happen even once to a PC not directly connected to the wide open internet.

Anyway regardless of any of this, my PC is my property and I have the absolute right to administer it any way I want. If I can't control updates and vet them individually then I'm going to completely disable updates and anyone who tries to force me to do otherwise can piss off. Few things are more irritating than Microsoft apologists.

[Halcyon]

No, it really is a scare tactic, and people like you parrot it as if it's gospel. Meanwhile I have years of actual experience cleaning up infected machines and every one of those became infected because the user installed something. *Every* one of them. Didn't matter if they were fully updated or not, the user is by far the biggest security hole.

Now for public facing servers, yes security updates are absolutely critical, but for a typical home PC that is sitting behind a router it just isn't that important, there are numerous small obstacles to exploiting them and typically it just doesn't happen. A couple months ago after a similar debate I actually fired up an old XP laptop connected to my home wifi and let it sit there, after about a week I got bored waiting for someone to p@wn it and shut it down. It's going to take a few exploits to change my mind because so far I've never seen it happen even once to a PC not directly connected to the wide open internet.

Anyway regardless of any of this, my PC is my property and I have the absolute right to administer it any way I want. If I can't control updates and vet them individually then I'm going to completely disable updates and anyone who tries to force me to do otherwise can piss off. Few things are more irritating than Microsoft apologists.

Allow me to interject. Mr Scram is absolutely on the money. My qualifications come from almost 20 years in the IT industry, having worked for the Australian Government in Cyber/digital forensics and a Master's Degree in Cyber Security. I also run my own company which specialises in secure networks.

A router (particularly a consumer one) will do little to stop cyber attacks, crooks stealing your data or user ignorance/stupidity. Attack vectors differ and there is not one single solution which will protect you. For a home user, the bare minimum should be:

1. Regular updates to OS, applications, anti-virus and device firmware.
2. User awareness and education.
3. Not logging on as an Administrator to do everyday tasks.
4. Regular backups.
5. Use unique and strong passwords for everything.

Remember WannaCry? That directly exploited a serious vulnerability in SMB. It was so serious that Microsoft developed an update for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 even though they were considered end-of-life several years beforehand. Hundreds of thousands of machines were infected. This is just one example of many.

The equivalent of not updating your operating systems is like solely relying on the seatbelt in your 1992 Toyota Corolla to keep you safe in a crash.

[Mr. Scram]

No, it really is a scare tactic, and people like you parrot it as if it's gospel. Meanwhile I have years of actual experience cleaning up infected machines and every one of those became infected because the user installed something. *Every* one of them. Didn't matter if they were fully updated or not, the user is by far the biggest security hole.

Now for public facing servers, yes security updates are absolutely critical, but for a typical home PC that is sitting behind a router it just isn't that important, there are numerous small obstacles to exploiting them and typically it just doesn't happen. A couple months ago after a similar debate I actually fired up an old XP laptop connected to my home wifi and let it sit there, after about a week I got bored waiting for someone to p@wn it and shut it down. It's going to take a few exploits to change my mind because so far I've never seen it happen even once to a PC not directly connected to the wide open internet.

Anyway regardless of any of this, my PC is my property and I have the absolute right to administer it any way I want. If I can't control updates and vet them individually then I'm going to completely disable updates and anyone who tries to force me to do otherwise can piss off. Few things are more irritating than Microsoft apologists.

While I agree with your assessment that the user is the beginning and the end when it comes to security, I do object to the notion of the importance of patches being something which is parroted. It requires being somewhat up to speed with the current threat landscape and the variety of attack vectors and actual attacks seen in the wild to understand their relevance. Most people are none of those things, which is why things are dumbed down into something which is then mistaken for gospel. It'd also be a grave mistake to think every infection or breach looks like your aunt downloading the new Ariana Grande album from the wrong website. Many if not most types of computer crime try to remain undetected as long as possible.

[rdl]

At one time, I would monitor Windows updates very carefully. This was around the time Windows 10 had been released and Microsoft was backdating Windows 7 and 8 to include much of the same spyware as Windows 10. I would scrutinized every single update for what it did and what it was for, before deciding whether I actually needed to install it. I did this for almost a year and I discovered that the reasons given for around 75% or more of updates were to fix vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer. 

Obviously it's a bad idea to use a computer stupidly when connected to the internet, updated or not. I use browsers that are locked down as tight as I know how and always updated. If I need to do something that requires passwords and credit card numbers to be sent it's done on a Linux machine, Steam and GoG being the only exceptions. And I've been avoiding that butt-sniffing Steam as much as possible lately.

[vtwin@cox.net]

Sometimes they also failed installing, and after having spent a long time upgrading, windows reverted the upgrade before finally booting. Next time windows update ran it tried installing the same broken update again.

Move any user home directory to another drive, and create a symlink in c:\users pointing to the new location. 100% breaks those larger "feature updates" where the update creates a Windows.Old folder. Been a known bug for several years, Microsoft still won't fix it. System will reboot night after night after night attempting to install (and then rollback) the same update. The only workaround is to reboot, log in to an administrator account with a home directory on C:\Users, remove the 'offending' symlink on the other account, install the update, reboot, log back in as the alternate user, recreate the symlink, reboot and then log in as the user. Friggin annoying.

[hwj-d]

Allow me to interject. Mr Scram is absolutely on the money. My qualifications come from almost 20 years in the IT industry, having worked for the Australian Government in Cyber/digital forensics and a Master's Degree in Cyber Security. I also run my own company which specialises in secure networks.

Oh wow, other people have that too. 
I'm not working for goverments, but also specialized to it-forensics since we know and use TCP/IP and identify it as not security oriented in this respect incompletely developed protocolls as the actual main security problem. And that's nearly doubles the 20 years.

A router (particularly a consumer one) will do little to stop cyber attacks, crooks stealing your data or user ignorance/stupidity. Attack vectors differ and there is not one single solution which will protect you. For a home user, the bare minimum should be:

1. Regular updates to OS, applications, anti-virus and device firmware.
2. User awareness and education.
3. Not logging on as an Administrator to do everyday tasks.
4. Regular backups.
5. Use unique and strong passwords for everything.
...

Thats right. I mention that too to everyone. But first we are living in a mixed structure of heterogen comercial and consumer oriented network-, server- and client OS's up to smartphones and xpads, that have fundamental other requirements also and especially with regard to safety requirements.

Especially with the many deliberately built in security gaps of commercial nature, but also of backdoors especially in the government's interest, the whole thing reminds me meanwhile rather of a ubiquitous shadow boxing towards the consumer than a real protective security issue.

Especially with win10 I can understand, if someone doesn't want to take part in this humming gyro anymore.

[apis]

Updates taking longer than a couple of handfuls of seconds upon reboot are rare, and they never take what could be considered a long time unless you've not installed updates for quite a while. "Many hours" doesn't happen in anything remotely resembling a regular scenario.

Clearly we have very different experiences when it comes to Windows 10 updates.

When I got my current laptop (which came with win 10) I installed dual-boot with Linux (on a separate disk). I very rarely used windows and the installation was mostly left the way it was when I got it from the shop (I had installed a few well regarded brand name applications, but never got around to using them). So there wasn't really any opportunity for me to break anything. I know my way around windows better than most (well, up until win 7 at least) and I have never had problems like that before. The computer would spend hours updating when it was time to reboot so I could get back into Linux. I spent days trying to figure out if there was a way to postpone them or even disable automatic updates, but the answer from Microsoft was that there were none. I have since removed windows, since the way it worked it really was useless and only a waste of disk space. Clearly there are others who have had the same experience, so I don't believe I'm an exception.

I'm glad it works for you. Many people who run windows have it configured so that it will install updates automatically during night. Many users might not even realise it does that. This is the case at most workplaces. Then you won't notice that the updates take a long time to install of course. But a few minutes every day quickly adds up to hours. As long as Microsoft treat their customers this way I won't bother with windows again.

And why did I have to login to my own computer with a windows live account?

[wraper]

I'm glad it works for you. Many people who run windows have it configured so that it will install updates automatically during night. Many users might not even realise it does that. This is the case at most workplaces. Then you won't notice that the updates take a long time to install of course. But a few minutes every day quickly adds up to hours. As long as Microsoft treat their customers this way I won't bother with windows again.

If you use SSD it never takes more than a few minutes. With HDD it can be quite slow sometimes.

[apis]

A router (particularly a consumer one) will do little to stop cyber attacks, crooks stealing your data or user ignorance/stupidity. Attack vectors differ and there is not one single solution which will protect you. For a home user, the bare minimum should be:

1. Regular updates to OS, applications, anti-virus and device firmware.
2. User awareness and education.
3. Not logging on as an Administrator to do everyday tasks.
4. Regular backups.
5. Use unique and strong passwords for everything.

Remember WannaCry? That directly exploited a serious vulnerability in SMB. It was so serious that Microsoft developed an update for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 even though they were considered end-of-life several years beforehand. Hundreds of thousands of machines were infected. This is just one example of many.

Another reason to stay away from Microsoft software, they have a very bad track record when it comes to security. For decades there was only an administrator account. (Maybe you have a different perspective on that as an security consultant though.)

I'm glad it works for you. Many people who run windows have it configured so that it will install updates automatically during night. Many users might not even realise it does that. This is the case at most workplaces. Then you won't notice that the updates take a long time to install of course. But a few minutes every day quickly adds up to hours. As long as Microsoft treat their customers this way I won't bother with windows again.

If you use SSD it never takes more than a few minutes. With HDD it can be quite slow sometimes.

It was on an SSD. I didn't log into windows very often so the updates accumulated and then wanted to be installed all at once, sequentially. A few minutes per day * many days = hours.

[Mr. Scram]

Clearly we have very different experiences when it comes to Windows 10 updates.

When I got my current laptop (which came with win 10) I installed dual-boot with Linux (on a separate disk). I very rarely used windows and the installation was mostly left the way it was when I got it from the shop (I had installed a few well regarded brand name applications, but never got around to using them). So there wasn't really any opportunity for me to break anything. I know my way around windows better than most (well, up until win 7 at least) and I have never had problems like that before. The computer would spend hours updating when it was time to reboot so I could get back into Linux. I spent days trying to figure out if there was a way to postpone them or even disable automatic updates, but the answer from Microsoft was that there were none. I have since removed windows, since the way it worked it really was useless and only a waste of disk space. Clearly there are others who have had the same experience, so I don't believe I'm an exception.

I'm glad it works for you. Many people who run windows have it configured so that it will install updates automatically during night. Many users might not even realise it does that. This is the case at most workplaces. Then you won't notice that the updates take a long time to install of course. But a few minutes every day quickly adds up to hours. As long as Microsoft treat their customers this way I won't bother with windows again.

And why did I have to login to my own computer with a windows live account?

The thing is that I've seen a lot of Windows 10 update cycles, more than I ever cared to see. Yet I've never seen these problems. I'm not saying that you didn't have yours, but I am saying something probably got broken on your end. Dual boot offers a few ways in which that could happen. Updates are occasionally done during the night, but most will be done during the day when the user is present.

You don't have to login to Windows with a Live account. The option to use a local account still exists. It's not that obvious, but it's there. That's another example of misinformation that gets spread because people don't quite know what they're doing. Finally, administrator accounts have been a thing in Windows since Windows 2000 and XP.

[apis]

The thing is that I've seen a lot of Windows 10 update cycles, more than I ever cared to see. Yet I've never seen these problems. I'm not saying that you didn't have yours, but I am saying something probably got broken on your end. Dual boot offers a few ways in which that could happen. Updates are occasionally done during the night, but most will be done during the day when the user is present.

They are installed during night if you configure it that way. They download during the day when the user might be present. Some updates that doesn't require a reboot might be installed when the desktop is running, but many has to be installed during a reboot. What fraction I don't know but it doesn't really matter, the end result was that it took hours to install the updates that required reboot. I installed Linux on a separate SSD so the entire windows drive was untouched. I'm very used to doing that and I don't see how it could cause any issues that would break updates?

I also know others with the same experience and the fact that another with the same experience was mentioned in this thread shows it's not an uncommon problem:

My friend is a gamer so he's pretty much forced to use Win10 on his gaming/VR machine. He doesn't use it all that frequently and complains that every time he does go to use it he has to wait an hour for the damn thing to install updates he didn't ask for and doesn't want. It's crazy to me that anyone finds this acceptable.

I can understand you find it hard to believe they designed it that way, I could hardly believe it myself. Especially that there was no way to postpone/disable the updates.

You don't have to login to Windows with a Live account. The option to use a local account still exists. It's not that obvious, but it's there.

I wonder why it's not that obvious.

[Mr. Scram]

They are installed during night if you configure it that way. They download during the day when the user might be present. Some updates that doesn't require a reboot might be installed when the desktop is running, but many has to be installed during a reboot. What fraction I don't know but it doesn't really matter, the end result was that it took hours to install the updates that required reboot. I installed Linux on a separate SSD so the entire windows drive was untouched. I'm very used to doing that and I don't see how it could cause any issues that would break updates?

I also know others with the same experience and the fact that another with the same experience was mentioned in this thread shows it's not an uncommon problem:

My friend is a gamer so he's pretty much forced to use Win10 on his gaming/VR machine. He doesn't use it all that frequently and complains that every time he does go to use it he has to wait an hour for the damn thing to install updates he didn't ask for and doesn't want. It's crazy to me that anyone finds this acceptable.

I can understand you find it hard to believe they designed it that way, I could hardly believe it myself. Especially that there was no way to postpone/disable the updates.

I wonder why it's not that obvious.

Computers can't install updates when they're turned off and users won't reliable leave computers running to do so. This means fat clients are updated in the presence of the end user. You can boot computers using WoL, but that's not that common outside of specific use cases. This is not a case of updates being installed out of sight. It's a case of something being wrong on your end which is probably exacerbated by not using the deployment that often. You've had issues and that's unfortunate, but you don't have enough experience or samples to properly gauge how big this problem is and seem to be making the mistake of projecting your issues on every computer out there. The Windows local login option is not that obvious because Microsoft wants you to use a Microsoft account. It's not terribly complicated to avoid that, though.

[wraper]

It was on an SSD. I didn't log into windows very often so the updates accumulated and then wanted to be installed all at once, sequentially. A few minutes per day * many days = hours.

First of all updates are not daily, you can't calculate like that. Also such "counter" is basically reset with each feature update. Hours on SSD is nonsense, there should be some issue with particular computer/windows installation for this to happen.

[apis]

It's a case of something being wrong on your end which is probably exacerbated by not using the deployment that often.

And you know that how?

Computers can't install updates when they're turned off and users won't reliable leave computers running to do so.

And yet, windows update has this option. Or now that I think back, that might have been windows xp or 7 :-, I think you are right, in windows 10 I believe you could only prevent it from installing updates during office hours. Is that right?

but you don't have enough experience or samples to properly gauge how big this problem is and seem to be making the mistake of projecting your issues on every computer out there.

Neither do you. As I said, I know other people who have had the same issue, and another person was mentioned in this thread. I never said it was the same for everyone, but it is a real problem. If you use windows every day and install updates continuously you probably don't have this problem, that doesn't mean it's not real.

The Windows local login option is not that obvious because Microsoft wants you to use a Microsoft account.

Yes, but the question was why does Microsoft want you to use a MS Live account. (It's a rhetorical question no need to answer.)

[apis]

It was on an SSD. I didn't log into windows very often so the updates accumulated and then wanted to be installed all at once, sequentially. A few minutes per day * many days = hours.

First of all updates are not daily, you can't calculate like that. Also such "counter" is basically reset with each feature update. Hours on SSD is nonsense, there should be some issue with particular computer/windows installation for this to happen.

It's what happened to me and it happens to others. If there was a problem it was there when I got it.

[wraper]

Yes, but the question was why does Microsoft want you to use a MS Live account. (It's a rhetorical question no need to answer.)

It's not rhetorical, it's data mining and making you buying more stuff from them. If you think a bit, basically everyone use live account with ios and Android and don't complain. Microsoft wants to be the same. What causes rejection is that it was not like this before. Also if you are a bit attentive during windows installation/first run of new computer, you'll notice it offers offline account on bottom of a screen.

[Halcyon]

Another reason to stay away from Microsoft software, they have a very bad track record when it comes to security. For decades there was only an administrator account. (Maybe you have a different perspective on that as an security consultant though.)

Windows is typically reasonably secure, even out of the box provided you catch up with the latest updates straight up. But some tweaking was required which was seldom done by home users. It's a balance between usability and security. Where as you take something like Fedora Server, everything is disabled or locked down by default until you turn it on.

For decades Windows would set the first user up as an Administrator upon installation, so effectively that user always had administrative rights whenever they executed something under their login. Microsoft "fixed" this from Windows Vista onwards by introducing User Access Control (UAC) which prompted the user with a yes/no prompt every time they tried to do something that required local admin rights. It was a step in the right direction, but it was still way too easy for novice users to break things.

The option for a regular user account was always there in most versions of Windows, even going back to the NT days, it's just typically in a home environment, no one set it up that way.

[Mr. Scram]

And you know that how?

And yet, windows update has this option. Or now that I think back, that might have been windows xp or 7 :-, I think you are right, in windows 10 I believe you could only prevent it from installing updates during office hours. Is that right?

Neither do you. As I said, I know other people who have had the same issue, and another person was mentioned in this thread. I never said it was the same for everyone, but it is a real problem. If you use windows every day and install updates continuously you probably don't have this problem, that doesn't mean it's not real.

Yes, but the question was why does Microsoft want you to use a MS Live account. (It's a rhetorical question no need to answer.)

I know that this problem is exacerbated by not using the machine often because I've seen it before. This also happens to be exactly what you and this other user you refer to are reporting.

I'm speaking on authority of a sample group of several thousand Windows 10 deployments in various configurations and environments. How big is your sample group?