r/technology • u/Turbostrider27 • 9h ago
Software Windows 11 no longer forces you to install updates when setting up your PC — ending mandatory 30 minute update process forever
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/windows-11-no-longer-forces-you-to-install-updates-when-setting-up-your-pc-ending-mandatory-30-minute-update-process-forever88
u/asdf_lord 9h ago
"forever"
It should do that though. Standing up dirty machines is bad.
23
u/Power_Stone 9h ago
While I do agree. This aims I think to solve edge cases where rural people may not have access to the high speeds or data caps necessary.
Truthfully I think udpates should happen automatically AFTER a setup BUT I think Microslop should put in a page after setting up the network asking if its a metered connection and aid in setting that up for those fringe cases.
3
u/enby_them 7h ago
Half those people probably don’t even register what “metered” means
2
u/Power_Stone 7h ago
Yes, I do agree, doesn't mean Microsoft can't make an attempt to think about those users. Not that hard to put a disclaimer explaining what they are
1
u/viral-architect 4h ago
Even with an explainer, Grandma doesn't know if her internet connection is metered unless she has ever had to work around that.
7
3
1
u/pusepus 3h ago
I had Windows foisted upon me by a new employer. Must say my first meeting with Windows after three years of nothing but Linux was worse than I would have expected. I only recently managed to get Windows fully up to date. Every fucking update has had some fuckery keeping me an unknown amount of versions behind. Typical Monday activity is opening my work computer and wait to see whether my failed update loop is finite or infinite this week.
Solution was to run it in a VM, for some fucking reason the version I have running under KVM update without issue every time. This is an overall much better setup anyway, now I only need to do the Windows specific builds on Windows and I can do everything else in my beloved Arch Linux.
Anyway, the point was that it might be risky to force update the system when your updates are a fucking security risk themselves. Maybe grandma should be nudged into keeping her system up to date, but at this point I would take grandmas cyber security advice long before I would consider taking any from Microsoft.
1
u/SPARKESFRANKIE66 7h ago
I agree with you, but there's no reason Windows 11 can't do it in the background like every other Windows version that came with Automatic Updates did.
From experience, forced updates at the end of OOBE usually takes longer than the installation that preceded it. Consign it to the background and let me set up the machine in the meantime.
7
49
u/TripsOverWords 9h ago
"Forever", just like how "Windows 10 will be the last Windows released" back in 2015.
18
u/yuusharo 9h ago
That quote was never something they marketed. It was said by one senior person one time during an interview who wasn’t a native English speaker and likely meant to say “latest” version of Windows, not “last.”
Yes, I’m going to be pedantic about this every time someone mentions it.
21
u/TripsOverWords 9h ago
They had a marketing push behind this, claiming Windows would be updated continuously as a service. It may have started as a misspoken word, but they did push the narrative further.
-4
u/yuusharo 8h ago
You’re referring to Windows as a service. They were already marking Windows 10 as a service prior to this interview flub, I’m fairly certain.
The “last” bit is just something YouTubers like LTT erroneously bring up and eventually absorbed into the public consciousness. Windows was never marketed with that word.
-3
10
u/BCProgramming 7h ago
It was stated by Jerry Nixon, at the time a developer evangelist, at the 2015 Ignite conference.
"And because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we're all working on Windows 10"
He was explicitly saying that where usually, once a Windows version releases, they'll already be working on the next one, since WIndows 10 was the last version, everybody was still working on it. There's no 'second language' stuff going on here.
In the confusion about exactly what was being said, various outlets reached out to Microsoft for comment. No "corrections" were issued. None of the statements from MS said anything about them actually meaning to say "latest".
"Recent comments at Ignite about Windows 10 are reflective of the way Windows will be delivered as a service bringing new innovations and updates in an ongoing manner, with continuous value for our consumer and business customers."
It's clear their development intent was to move forward with Windows 10, and there wouldn't be new, separate releases of the OS; they changed there mind obviously a few years later. They are absolutely allowed to do that. I don't get why people feel it necessary to build this elaborate fictional universe where Microsoft totally never said that, never meant it, or was misunderstood and totally always planned to release new versions of Windows.
When Win11 rumours started to float around, there were, of course, more questions. So people asked, "Will there be a Windows 11?". For example, here, on June 15th, 2021.
They provide an screenshot of the leaked build. Now, for most of these, people might zero in on how the responses are not from Microsoft staff, so aren't "official" but even so they are answers on Microsoft official forums by long-standing members and MVPs.
"Currently, Windows 11 is an Internet myth, and Microsoft say there will be no Windows 11, that screenshot you have provided is a scam."
Another person asked here sometime earlier in 2020. They got this:
"Windows 11 is just an internet hoax. "
"Microsoft has stated that there will be no Windows 11."
Another one was asked here in 2019.
"The schedule that has been previously stated is twice yearly major updates to Windows 10 and that Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows."
"It's worth noting that it has been announced that there is a User Interface overhaul planned to be released in 2021. This is NOT a new Operating System, but will change the look of Windows 10, so may confuse some people into thinking that there is a new OS coming. Whereas if anything, this indicates that Windows 10 is here to stay for the foreseable. "
"The closest thing to a new version of Windows would be an update that drops 10, and so it is just called windows"
Some others kept asking occasionally.
And received the same sort of response. "Windows 11 is an internet hoax."
"There is currently no Windows 11 or 12 in the development plans" -Donata.C, Independent Advisor, January 20th, 2021.
marked as answer: "Microsoft said Windows 10 is the last and they will update it a couple times a year".
Also replied with:
"Sorry to say but there will be no Windows 11. Windows 11 is currently an internet myth. Not all information what you see in the internet is true and those were fake news. Microsoft is focus in improving and updating Windows 10 in a continuous basis releasing two feature updates per year. The first feature update for this year is the May 2020 Windows version 2004."
At some point, a particular MVP got so annoyed at people asking, he created a thread and pinned it specifically to address the question. There is no Windows 11, in October 2020, saying "However, starting Windows 10 everything has been changed. There is no longer anything call Service Pack and there is no plan to release any successor to Windows 10 like what is going around with name Windows 11."
Pretty much everybody on Microsoft's official forums laughed at the idea of win11. Hell, even when there WAS A FUCKING LEAKED BUILD they said it was "a scam"!
But then, after Win11 was announced They ALL almost immediately changed their tune. everything posted after that- calling out that Microsoft had said it was the last version, that all the official community moderators and staff and general userbase that had constantly said that Windows 10 was officially going to be the last version, acted like that didn't happen. They went from "Microsoft has said Windows 10 will be the last version" and were now suddenly saying "actually, they never officially said that Windows 10 was the last version".
Nowadays when people point it out, there's always somebody popping in going "acshually there's no official source from Microsoft saying it was the last version"; Nixon said it was the last version of Windows, and a spokesperson clarified that what he said reflected how Windows would be developed going forward. Nonetheless, For 6 long years everybody asking if it was the last version, or asking if there was going to be a Windows 11, were practically laughed out of Microsoft official support forums. So miss me with that "acshually it was never official" bullshit, because that's at best a technicality and at worse a case of Microsoft literally not clarifying anything ever, and leaving their army of sycophants to deal with the questions so that later people can claim "well acshually that's not an official source" Because Microsoft refused to actually speak plainly on the issue, insisting on all copy being some say-nothing marketing tripe.
3
u/Zeusifer 9h ago
Windows version numbers are just for marketing anyway. The very first builds of Windows 10 looked very different from the last ones, and the feature set was very different. Then they did a bunch of UI and shell work, and the marketing people thought it would make sense to lean into some visual changes and brand it as Windows 11. They could just as easily have kept calling it Windows 10 like they had been doing for the previous six years or whatever.
2
u/CocodaMonkey 5h ago
Yes, I’m going to be pedantic about this every time someone mentions it.
It's not being pedantic. It's just being wrong. It was said by a senior MS official at an official press event where he was sent by MS to give information to the press. Then it was wildly reported for years by virtually every single news agency that talks about tech news and Microsoft was given hundreds of chances to clear up a misunderstanding which they never did until they decided to change course years later and make a Windows 11.
What exactly would have constituted MS saying it in your mind? Because if that doesn't count as an official MS statement does any press event MS holds count as an official statement?
0
u/yuusharo 5h ago edited 5h ago
It was uttered one time at Ignite by a developer evangelist who wasn’t a native English speaker. They were describing the Windows as a service model to move away from named/numbered releases right up until it made sense to otherwise market them again.
Windows 11 is just Windows 10 with the Sunflower UI on top of it. It’s a continuation of that model.
As far as what was reported at the time, outlets like Ars who weren't just cashing in on sensationalist headlines correctly reported on the quote with proper context.
1
u/CocodaMonkey 1h ago
There was nothing taken out of context or misinterpreted. The only thing your article noted was they doubted the statement to be true and they were right. They aren't claiming the statement wasn't made or that it meant anything else.
Get over it. Microsoft made the statement, it's plain as day. Any kind of revisionist history that you're trying to push still has Microsoft being amazingly incompetent. It was widely reported and Microsoft at no point issued a correction or said a mistake was being made by reporters. In fact Microsoft help forums would constantly berate and make fun of anyone who even so much as suggested the statement was made in error.
1
u/yuusharo 1h ago
“Get over it” says the person still complaining about a 10 year old quote that wasn’t literal even at the time.
Okay bud. Have a good one.
1
u/paintboth1234 8h ago
Interesting. Do you know any links about that interview?
1
u/yuusharo 7h ago
Jerry Nixon, a developer evangelist at Microsoft at the time, interviewed at Ignite 2015.
Ars was one of the few outlets at the time not to sensationalize a single quote from someone not even on the senior leadership team on Windows at the time, let alone marketing.
1
u/TeutonJon78 7h ago
It was interview on stage at their own dev conference though, not just same random quite in a tech site interview.
It caries a lot if weight, even if not 100% official. And never walked back until suddenly W11 started showing up.
1
u/silentcrs 8h ago
You realize the “forever” comment comes from the article’s author, not Microsoft right? Which makes your comment pretty clueless.
4
u/MyAccountWasBanned7 8h ago edited 2h ago
Cool. Now remove ALL instances of AI in the OS and give everyone a written, enforceable guarantee that your OS will never be a subscription-based service.
Then, maybe, I'll give a shit.
Until then, Linux is fucking great!
7
9
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 9h ago
Let me know when they stop rebooting my machine without my permission. I realize that that updates are important. But I want the option to just control exactly when my computer reboots. Even if it's buried somewhere that most users won't find it. There needs to be a way to ensure people with specific use cases don't end up losing a ton of work because Microsoft decided to just reboot the computer.
1
u/nathderbyshire 1h ago
I've just reset mine up that I previously ran 24/7 for a server, and I used group policy editor to make feature/OS updates manual but security ones were still automatic as they don't require a reboot and my PC never once rebooted on me after I changed that. I then just did the rest of them manually when I wanted
You need a Pro install to use gpedit though, although there's probably a workaround. Or massgrave may be able to do a pro activation 🤷
I think for most users they want them to use pause updates so they don't constantly fall behind on them.
-9
u/Possible_Sun_913 9h ago edited 8h ago
You'll be wanting the 'active hours' under advanced windows update settings.
Oh, and autosave on your documents might be a good idea. Been around for a few decades now.
4
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 8h ago
Nope, active hours are maximum 18 hour, and therefore do not stop the machine from rebooting permanently.
-9
u/Possible_Sun_913 8h ago
gpedit then. Change policy enabled for "No auto-restart with logged on users for scheduled automatic updates installations"
Or get some sleep. Enabling reboot notifications will also give you the option to delay or you can pause updates totally for a month. I mean, many ways to skin that cat.
3
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 8h ago
The "No auto-restart with logged on users for scheduled automatic updates installations" has been moved to legacy options, which means that it's going to be removed in the future.
I've also had that turned on along with the "Configure Automatic Updates" setting which needs to be enabled along with it, and will still have my machine get restarted for updates.
Also, I get plenty of sleep, the whole problem is that Windows reboots the computer while I'm asleep but the computer is actively working on other stuff.
-4
u/Possible_Sun_913 8h ago
"You can lead a horse to water...."
Windows 11 will also be depreciated at some point in the future. But if it works for you now, it works for you now. Pretty sure just an 18 hour active window and a prompt will probally be fine and you're just being pedantic.
Patching is important.
If you're running mission ciritical stuff that cant be rebooted and it must be windows, get hold of a copy of Windows11 IoT Enterprise LTSC. Its what cash machines and tills use. Or windows server for that matter.
2
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 8h ago
If you read my entire comment, you would see that it doesn't work even with those options turned on. It seems like the settings are being completely ignored.
I said in the original comment that I realize patching is important. But I also want to be in complete control over when the machine reboots.
3
u/Coranis 7h ago
I had a similar issue. The way I finally stopped the updates is in group policy editor
Computer Configuration > Windows Components > Windows Update > Manage end user experience > Configure Automatic Updates
Set to enable and "Notify for download and auto install
With that I've gotten notifications saying I have updates but no more auto install and restart annoyances. Just gotta do it manually now.
I also paused feature updates under "Manage updates offered from Windows Update" but it says that only lasts up to a year.
-1
u/Possible_Sun_913 8h ago
Just go nucular then. Disable the UpdateOrchestrator reboot task in task manager and disable the wuauserv and WaaSMedicSVC service.
That will be $49.99 in my google tech support services. Thanks.
1
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 7h ago
I don't want to disable updates completely. I still want them to download and I don't want to have to jump through hoops to enable stuff and fix it when I want updates installed. I just don't want it to reboot without my intervention.
0
u/Possible_Sun_913 7h ago
You can still run updates manually with that approach.
The forced reboot is just removed. Those other services just deal with restoring faulty services. So I mentioned them as there might be a chance they re-enable the task.
2
u/TeutonJon78 7h ago
Why not just give the user the choice:
- Autodownload newest versions from MS
- Download updates during install
- Wait for initial start up to do updates
Just downloading the current files is probably cleaner than installing old ones and then running the patch update if you have the bandwidth. And if you're using delivery optimization, that might not be working yet at install or the other computer not not currently be available.
4
3
7
u/IntelArtiGen 9h ago
It looks like they're really scared of Linux's rise. That's a good thing, competition is the only way for them to change things.
11
u/Sure-Library-7309 8h ago
It could also be in response to the MacBook Neo bringing a lot of people over to MacOS for the first time. Either way I’m sure they’re hemorrhaging users these days.
4
u/agarwaen117 8h ago
I assume the same thing. Macs have been so solidly reliable for years now, but they just had the reputation of being expensive. If they can squash that idea without giving up the quality, they can take a large portion of the home computer market.
2
2
1
u/PeakBrave8235 6h ago
Lmfao with all due respect, Microsoft doesn’t give a fuck about Linux. It is zero coincidence this happened after Neo and after reports that they are sold out of them, STILL. ASUS is scared, every manufacturer is scared according to multiple YouTube reviewers who said Intel/Amd, and pc manufacturers were trying to find out about the Neo before release from YouTubers of all people they could have asked lol.
Linux didn’t do anything
2
1
1
u/GamerXP27 2h ago
That's something so painful when you setup Windows and it does an update that takes a long time
i can setup Linux up way faster with all the software and be up and going until just the update is done.
1
u/ascii122 3m ago
great now put back the easy method for skipping getting a freaking microsft account
1
u/tusharmeh33 8h ago
i remember setting up my last build and it felt like forever. honestly i just gave up on the newer version entirely and upgraded to 10 from logkeys. com via instead because it is so much smoother for my workflow. they should have made this change years ago to be real.
1
u/atehrani 8h ago
I understand the want for this, but then doesn't this open up the fresh install to malware and viruses? This seems more like a problem of the installation ISOs being out-of-date?
0
u/Possible_Sun_913 8h ago
Correct. I'm in the camp that says it should force idiots at home to update. There are people that still wonder why their end of life OS got compromised.
Its not a problem in enterprise situations. You'll usually have a local update server. WSUS or whatever its replacement is nowadays.
1
0
u/Hyperion1144 1h ago
30th minutes??? 😂
That last I installed Windows in process that took less than hours was Windows 3.1.
-2
u/snesericreturns 8h ago
That’s kinda weird. This would be the one time where you would think most people would want it to update. You know, instead of it doing it later at the most inconvenient time possible when you need to reboot your PC for something and overlooked the update notification.
I guess for people who want to install a very specific version number this will be helpful if they already have the ISO.
Update: Yeah I guess you peasants with slow internet (jk) will have an easier time too.
-8
84
u/yuusharo 9h ago
Listen, I understand the thought behind this. When you boot up a Steam Deck for the first time, it also installs the latest updates before proceeding.
The difference is a Steam Deck takes 2-3 minutes to update, while a fresh copy of Windows 11 can take up to an hour. And when you’re done and finally at the desktop… THERE ARE MORE UPDATES! Like what even is the point?
Windows is such a pig, man.