Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Cheers

Dave R

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I didn't think there were any updates to XP any more.

Not for long...

April 18th 2014 for final EOSL for XP

http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windo...ofsupport.aspx

Darren

On 19/07/13 12:30, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Cheers

Dave R
I didn't think there were any updates to XP any more.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

David.WE.Roberts wrote:

any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Depends if you object to machines deciding to update and often need a
reboot at times that might not be convenient fr you.

I didn't think there were any updates to XP any more.

There are, until next April.

On 19/07/2013 12:30 David.WE.Roberts wrote:

Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

I'm on Windows 7 and a few weeks ago the upgrade to IE10 caused problems
(I can't remember exactly what they were) and the advice was to roll
back to IE9. It's for that kind of reason, and that I don't want
anything like the Bing toolbar installing, that I prefer to have a look
to see what update wants to do before allowing it.

--
F

On 19/07/2013 13:21, F wrote:
On 19/07/2013 12:30 David.WE.Roberts wrote:

Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

I'm on Windows 7 and a few weeks ago the upgrade to IE10 caused problems
(I can't remember exactly what they were) and the advice was to roll
back to IE9. It's for that kind of reason, and that I don't want
anything like the Bing toolbar installing, that I prefer to have a look
to see what update wants to do before allowing it.

Agreed.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:16:46 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

David.WE.Roberts wrote:

any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Depends if you object to machines deciding to update and often need a
reboot at times that might not be convenient fr you.

To stop the reboot until the time of your choosing and stop the reboot popup
appearing every 10 minutes (at least in XP)

Let the update proceed

Wait until the reboot appears

Start - Control Panel - Adminstrative Tools - Services

Right Click 'Automatic Updates'

Left Click 'Stop'


--

Jethro_uk wrote:

As a Windows kinda person (professionally) I am repeated amazed at Linux's
ability to go forever without a reboot.

My Media server has been up for 51 days now.

The other week, I encountered a Cisco switch that hasn't been rebooted
in 13.5 years

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 19/07/2013 13:21, F wrote:
On 19/07/2013 12:30 David.WE.Roberts wrote:

Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

I'm on Windows 7 and a few weeks ago the upgrade to IE10 caused problems
(I can't remember exactly what they were) and the advice was to roll
back to IE9. It's for that kind of reason, and that I don't want
anything like the Bing toolbar installing, that I prefer to have a look
to see what update wants to do before allowing it.

Agreed.

+1

On Friday 19 July 2013 12:30 David.WE.Roberts wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Cheers

Dave R

I have auto patch and reboot on all bar one of my Windows Server 2008
machines (only a very few machines). No problems yet.

The one thing that has blown me up are Oracle Java updates buggering up a
VMWare/EQLLogic component so those are disabled.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Depends if you object to machines deciding to update and often need a
reboot at times that might not be convenient fr you.


I have Win7 on auto update - but it only ever applies the update when you
go to power down. And of course may finish the process when you next
switch on - which could be a problem if you're in a hurry to use the
computer. But I'd just use another one if that happened. ;-)

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday 19 July 2013 13:27 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:30:46 +0000, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Cheers

Dave R

(Well it is OT).

As a Windows kinda person (professionally) I am repeated amazed at Linux's
ability to go forever without a reboot.

That's not technically true - any system update that affects things across
the board requires a reboot (say core libraries used by everything, eg
libc).

And of course kernerl updates.

However, I probably reboot my servers once a quarter - usually when VMWare
wants to shove new guest drivers on.

But it does seem a *lot* less than Windows in frequency...

My Media server has been up for 51 days now. Since I rebuilt it, and
swapped Ubuntu for Debian. Under Ubuntu, it was regularly up for over 100
days at a time ... and even then I suspect the reboots weren't strictly
necessary. I used to used the NX server for remote access, and it would
crash. I'm sure I could have worked out how to find the rogue process and
killed it or restarted it, but it was quicker to reboot.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 19/07/13 13:43, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

As a Windows kinda person (professionally) I am repeated amazed at
Linux's
ability to go forever without a reboot.

My Media server has been up for 51 days now.

The other week, I encountered a Cisco switch that hasn't been rebooted
in 13.5 years

vps:/var/log/apache2# uptime
16:55:25 up 167 days, 6:09, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00
vps:/var/log/apache2#

THAT only went down because the hosting company had a massive weirdness
in their network infrastructure.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:56:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/07/13 13:43, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

As a Windows kinda person (professionally) I am repeated amazed at
Linux's ability to go forever without a reboot.

My Media server has been up for 51 days now.

The other week, I encountered a Cisco switch that hasn't been rebooted
in 13.5 years

vps:/var/log/apache2# uptime
16:55:25 up 167 days, 6:09, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00
vps:/var/log/apache2#

THAT only went down because the hosting company had a massive weirdness
in their network infrastructure.

Last time I did an OS update on SWMBO's desktop, I was amazed to find
that it had been up for a little more than 400 days. The previous reboot
was after the previous OS update....

Not Windows.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

FWIW, I don't see a single reason to bother with Windows Updates for
home machines and certainly not for XP. Bogs it all down a million temp
and backup files and some of the new "features" (IE7/8/9 and, on one
struggling XP laptop, a pointlessly updated Search function) stretch the
performance of older hardware.

As for having to put up with "Please wait while configuring/installing
updates" when you just wanted to quickly reboot it for whatever reason
is infuriating.

Install, run updates once (and sometimes not at all if it arses about
doing it), turn off and leave off. Never caused me grief. Never left me
missing some feature or other and if it turns out that you really need a
Hotfix, this can still be done. And, above all, never given me a machine
that runs dog slow and as stable as an elephant on a tightrope.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On Friday 19 July 2013 17:32 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:24:56 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On Friday 19 July 2013 13:27 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

[quoted text muted]

That's not technically true - any system update that affects things
across the board requires a reboot (say core libraries used by
everything, eg libc).

Well I just apply updates - can't recall last time one required a reboot.

They don't always tell you - depends on the distro.

But any kernel or core library update needs a reboot. As to whether you
*need* to reboot there and then depends very much on whether the update was
a security patch and whether you are exposed to whatever security flaw.

Windows is reboot happy. I'm just cautioning that just because linux isn't
doesn't totally make it the case that it does need odd reboots

I was convinced Linux was different to Windows when my brother (who is a
Linux expert) logged into my system remotely, and while I was surfing,
managed to recompile and reload the audio driver so the speakers suddenly
started working. Try doing that in windows.

Indeed. Windows wants a bloody reboot just to install certain programs.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Friday 19 July 2013 17:18 Scott M wrote in uk.d-i-y:

David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

FWIW, I don't see a single reason to bother with Windows Updates for
home machines and certainly not for XP. Bogs it all down a million temp
and backup files and some of the new "features" (IE7/8/9 and, on one
struggling XP laptop, a pointlessly updated Search function) stretch the
performance of older hardware.

As for having to put up with "Please wait while configuring/installing
updates" when you just wanted to quickly reboot it for whatever reason
is infuriating.

Install, run updates once (and sometimes not at all if it arses about
doing it), turn off and leave off. Never caused me grief. Never left me
missing some feature or other and if it turns out that you really need a
Hotfix, this can still be done. And, above all, never given me a machine
that runs dog slow and as stable as an elephant on a tightrope.


And gets owned when you visit a hijack website in IE.

Just because you may (or not) be behind a firewall or NAT does not mean you
are safe if you ignore patching.

There's a reason there are loads of botnets in China and it's because they
are ripping off dodgey copies of Windows that the update servers won't (or
didn't) touch.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
As a Windows kinda person (professionally) I am repeated amazed at
Linux's ability to go forever without a reboot.

Aren't a lot of Windows updates for security reasons? And do as many try
and write viruses etc for Linux?

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
I was convinced Linux was different to Windows when my brother (who is a
Linux expert) logged into my system remotely, and while I was surfing,
managed to recompile and reload the audio driver so the speakers
suddenly started working. Try doing that in windows.

Not a problem with any computer.

--
*Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On one machine that had a demo of Office 2010 on it eeven though its been
uninstalled and deleted, Windows updates keeps sending me updates for it,
occasionally requiring me to go back and delete them as it screws up
Internet Explorer in XP so my screenreader cannot read the pages, it has
also mucked up Firefox a few times by trying to update a web import tool
of Word in the same package. I now always go to the sight and uncheck all
the Office 2010 updates and hide them.

I'm told that if you know what you are doing you can edit the database file
which is used, but sadly they are all listed as huge hex numbers so figuring
out which are for what is a reat deal of hassle and make one mistake and
Windows is toast for the next update.
Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Cheers

Dave R

17 updates to xp this very month.


Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/07/13 12:30, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

Cheers

Dave R
I didn't think there were any updates to XP any more.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

However the industry are still trying to get it extended as over 40 percent
of users still use XP mostly those in businesses. I checked at some NHS
places recently and they are all on XP.
Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"D.M.Chapman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I didn't think there were any updates to XP any more.

Not for long...

April 18th 2014 for final EOSL for XP

http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windo...ofsupport.aspx

Darren

The search was an optional update, as was the power shell. I have noticed a
speed up on old hardware myself. I think they have cleaned up the number of
times things get run ie duplication.
Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On Friday 19 July 2013 17:18 Scott M wrote in uk.d-i-y:

David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

FWIW, I don't see a single reason to bother with Windows Updates for
home machines and certainly not for XP. Bogs it all down a million temp
and backup files and some of the new "features" (IE7/8/9 and, on one
struggling XP laptop, a pointlessly updated Search function) stretch the
performance of older hardware.

As for having to put up with "Please wait while configuring/installing
updates" when you just wanted to quickly reboot it for whatever reason
is infuriating.

Install, run updates once (and sometimes not at all if it arses about
doing it), turn off and leave off. Never caused me grief. Never left me
missing some feature or other and if it turns out that you really need a
Hotfix, this can still be done. And, above all, never given me a machine
that runs dog slow and as stable as an elephant on a tightrope.


And gets owned when you visit a hijack website in IE.

Just because you may (or not) be behind a firewall or NAT does not mean
you
are safe if you ignore patching.

There's a reason there are loads of botnets in China and it's because they
are ripping off dodgey copies of Windows that the update servers won't (or
didn't) touch.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 19/07/2013 17:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Friday 19 July 2013 17:32 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:24:56 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On Friday 19 July 2013 13:27 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

[quoted text muted]

That's not technically true - any system update that affects things
across the board requires a reboot (say core libraries used by
everything, eg libc).

Well I just apply updates - can't recall last time one required a reboot.

They don't always tell you - depends on the distro.

But any kernel or core library update needs a reboot. As to whether you
*need* to reboot there and then depends very much on whether the update was
a security patch and whether you are exposed to whatever security flaw.

Depends on your distro again. If you've got Ksplice it won't need a
reboot :-)

On 19/07/2013 17:32, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:24:56 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On Friday 19 July 2013 13:27 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

[quoted text muted]

That's not technically true - any system update that affects things
across the board requires a reboot (say core libraries used by
everything, eg libc).

Well I just apply updates - can't recall last time one required a reboot.

I was convinced Linux was different to Windows when my brother (who is a
Linux expert) logged into my system remotely, and while I was surfing,
managed to recompile and reload the audio driver so the speakers suddenly
started working. Try doing that in windows.


Of course you wouldn't need to in windows as it would have worked in the
first place.

I had a xenix box that ran protocol conversion between ISO networking
and TCP/IP (before TCP/IP became the defacto standard) and that stayed
up for about 15 years and was only taken down when it was no longer
needed, well actually five years after it was needed because we forgot
it was there. It was an Intel 510 box IIRC and we were running RMX86 on
others.

dennis@home wrote:

On 19/07/2013 17:32, Jethro_uk wrote:

[snip]

I was convinced Linux was different to Windows when my brother (who is a
Linux expert) logged into my system remotely, and while I was surfing,
managed to recompile and reload the audio driver so the speakers suddenly
started working. Try doing that in windows.


Of course you wouldn't need to in windows as it would have worked in the
first place.

Did you forget the smiley?

Consider the number of times the advice for fixing problems with Windows is
"Upgrade to the latest drivers".

--
Mike Clarke

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:25 +0100, F wrote:

On 19/07/2013 12:30 David.WE.Roberts wrote:

Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let
others try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.

So - any reason not to turn Windows Update onto full automatic for XP,
Vista and 7?

I'm on Windows 7 and a few weeks ago the upgrade to IE10 caused problems
(I can't remember exactly what they were) and the advice was to roll
back to IE9. It's for that kind of reason, and that I don't want
anything like the Bing toolbar installing, that I prefer to have a look
to see what update wants to do before allowing it.

I am constantly amazed that the Bing toolbar is listed as an optional
update.

I am assuming that automatic updating will follow the same rules as the
manual updating - optional updates will not be applied.

Cheers

Dave R

On 19/07/2013 22:56, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
I am constantly amazed that the Bing toolbar is listed as an optional
update.

Thank goodness it's not mandatory.

--
Rod

On 19/07/2013 12:30, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Being a long time Windows user I learned many years back to wait for a
week or two after a new patch came out before applying it, to let others
try it out and report any problems.

However these days patches seem to go in O.K. and on Windows 8 there
doesn't even seem to be an easy option to stop automatic updating.


With Windows 8 I set 'Download updates but let me choose whether to
install them'

This avoids things like Bing and new versions of I.E.


--
Michael Chare

On 19/07/2013 23:07, polygonum wrote:
On 19/07/2013 22:56, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
I am constantly amazed that the Bing toolbar is listed as an optional
update.

Thank goodness it's not mandatory.

But AFAICS you can't hide the bloody update option, as you can for other
unwanted things, so every single time I have to untick it. Or is it
just me?


--
David

On 20/07/2013 09:07, Lobster wrote:
On 19/07/2013 23:07, polygonum wrote:
On 19/07/2013 22:56, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
I am constantly amazed that the Bing toolbar is listed as an optional
update.

Thank goodness it's not mandatory.

But AFAICS you can't hide the bloody update option, as you can for other
unwanted things, so every single time I have to untick it. Or is it
just me?


I have certainly hidden it! And I have two entries for it in my "Restore
hidden updates" list.

From memory, you right-click on it and select one of the options.

--
Rod

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:07:38 +0100, Lobster wrote:

On 19/07/2013 23:07, polygonum wrote:
On 19/07/2013 22:56, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
I am constantly amazed that the Bing toolbar is listed as an optional
update.

Thank goodness it's not mandatory.

But AFAICS you can't hide the bloody update option, as you can for other
unwanted things, so every single time I have to untick it. Or is it
just me?

My setup only ticks the important ones, and doesn't tick the optional ones.

I don't remember if this is a system setting or not - you could have a
look at your update settings just in case.

Cheers

Dave R