Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


dencorso

How to avoid being "upgraded to Win 10" against your will:

Recommended Posts

Indeed, they'll be able to trumpet how successful Windows 10 has been, but it'll mainly have been because they pushed it out for free, not only to Windows 8/8.1 users, but to Windows 7 users as well!

 

 

It will be kinda like Google Plus when they made everyone who had a Youtube account sign up for a G+ account so they could post comment ect on Youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An unfortunate scenario has come to light. Say you had chosen to reserve Windows 10 at some point in the past. Say you are seeing all the negative reactions about Windows 10 and want to wait a while before upgrade or maybe you changed your mind and don't want it. Well guess what? TOO BAD!

 

Somewhere around here, back a couple of months ago when "reserving" first came out, I posted my thoughts about it.  There have been those who pooh poohed the idea that they were giving unconditional permission to Microsoft to install the OS, thinking, "it's MY computer, of course I'll be asked to confirm when the time comes".  Yeah, right.

 

Hard not to be critical of both Microsoft AND the naïve, overly trusting user in that case.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a batch script to "Stop the Windows 10 Upgrade Nag"

credit: http://www.intelliadmin.com/

~DP

Echo off:: Notes: Stop 10 Nag.cmd - Right-Click and Run as admin..:: Remove the "Get Windows Now" folder from update if found..taskkill.exe /F /IM "gwx.exe"takeown /a /r /skipsl /d Y /f "%windir%\System32\GWX" && icacls "%windir%\System32\GWX" /grant administrators:Frobocopy "%windir%\System32\GWX" "%windir%\System32\GWX_Old" /Ermdir /s /q "%windir%\System32\GWX":: Disable "Get Windows 10 Upgrade Nag" message..reg add HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Gwx /v DisableGwx /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this on Technet regarding automatic downloading of Windows 10:

If it's a Win8.1 computer and KB3035583, KB2976978 & KB3044374 are listed in Installed Updates, the Win10 installer files will be downloaded via Automatic Updates.

If it's a Win7 SP1 computer and KB3035583, KB2952664 & KB2990214 are listed in Installed Updates, the Win10 installer files will be downloaded via Automatic Updates.

https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/c4be9e8f-4d8f-40db-9230-ca614e6af42f/does-the-upgrade-still-download-even-if-i-havent-reserved?forum=win10itprosetup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that KB3044374 and KB2990214 are not on my "must hide" lists (but are on dencorso's list at the start of this thread). 

 

These specifically describe changes to the Windows Update process itself that makes it compatible with the recent Windows Update server changes at Microsoft, and are described at the following link as something everyone will want, even if not upgrading to Win 10:

 

http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/archive/2015/04/14/windows-servicing-releases-april-14-2015.aspx

 

Specifically, this is interesting:

 

 

5.  For all operating systems, there are improvements in the overall Windows Update client which is why it was released as Important

 

 

My decision - which can be debated - to allow these updates into my systems reflects my desire to block Win 10 shilling but continue keeping up with other Microsoft Updates in general.

 

I believe dencorso's approach is more conservative...  Paraphrasing:  Don't allow anything even remotely related to Win 10 in on the general principle that it can be nothing but bad for you.

 

Both ideas have merit.

 

If the idea is not to follow Microsoft AT ALL down their current path, then NOT installing KB3044374 / KB2990214 might be a better way to go.  Once Microsoft starts being even more aggressive about pushing things people don't want (GWX II anyone?), a system without KB3044374 / KB2990214 might just not respond.

 

There is also the distinct - and important - possibility that NOT choosing to update part of the system will, over time, result in a system with a mix/match of software versions that were never tested together by Microsoft, and may not even work.  That's the strongest reason for my approach of minimizing the number of hidden updates.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the issue is with the definition of "improvements in the overall Windows Update client" which doesn't really mean anything.

 

Will the Windows Update client (once those two Kb's are downloaded) be:

  1. faster
  2. more reliable (which would imply that all the people that don't use those two kb are still successfully having updates but in a less reliable way)
  3. have a priority in the downloading queue on the server (if such thing exists :unsure:)
  4. allow for no (or at least less) "mandatory reboots" after the install of the downloaded updates
  5. occupy less (NOT more) bytes on the system disk
  6. deliver/download bolder 1 and fatter 0's :w00t:

If one (or more) of the listed items is true, then we may talk of specific improvements (and these may be compared with "overall improvements" which still make some sense, but still not with "improvements in the overall client" that make no sense whatsoever, at least linguistically).

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your skepticism about Microsoft's definition of "improvements", but the crux of the matter isn't about the "improvements" at all, but whether Windows Updates may stop working for systems that don't choose to accept the "improved" Windows Update client.

 

For illustrative purposes and the sake of argument, let's divide the Windows Update protocol into the "OLD" version - pre KB2990214 and the "NEW" version, after KB2990214 is installed.

 

Might Microsoft's servers stop providing "OLD" style updates and only provide "NEW" service at some point in the future?

 

I can't say.  I doubt you can either.

 

Perhaps you think Microsoft has some strong obligation to continue updating old systems (including those who have hidden KB2990214) via the old protocol... 

 

Didn't it at some point become impossible to bring a very old XP system (e.g., freshly installed from ancient media) up to date via Windows Update (Microsoft Update)? 

 

I don't see why they should feel any more obligated to continue to update Windows 7 "the OLD way".

 

And again, this whole argument is contingent on how strongly you really WANT Microsoft to continue updating your "legacy" ("legendary"?) system, which is very likely already very stable and not strongly in NEED of updates.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is slightly different.

 

Of course the good MS guys have all the rights in the world (+one) to change the way (be it protocol/urls/deployment mechanism/whatever) they deliver updates and they are perfectly free to do so twice a week (if they like to) and as well to refuse updating an EOS Operating System, etc.

 

I would go even further, they don't have any obligation whatever to explain what any update does, for all it matters they could publish updates with this accompanying documentation (fake):

We, Microsoft determined that you MUST download and install this update, the reasons are not up for debate, you either trust us or you don't, it's an act of faith.

 

 

A non-explanation is IMHO better than a vague (and in this particular case meaningless) one.

 

Now, IF they do provide an explanation/documentation for an update I expect it to be:

  1. clear
  2. accurate
  3. truthful

 

and would like it to be also:

4. exhaustive

 

Additionally in this specific case of unspecified improvements to the "overall client", it has to be noted how after all it is not brain surgery or rocket science, the good MS guys make a list of new updates and publish it on their site, then the Windows Update client looks periodically at that list and downloads what is considered "necessary" with - maybe - a minimal amount of checking when a same update may be compatible or incompatible with the actual machine at hand.

 

The procedure is so simple that it either works or it does not, binary 0/1, Off/On.

 

IF they change anything in the way the updates are delivered then the "old" client version will stop working and they will need to deliver (through the previous protocol or as a separate manual download) the "new" client compatible with the new way/protocol/etc.

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 'm taking the conservative approach and blocking/hiding per dencorso's list.  I figure, perhaps wrongly, that if Noel's fear that KB3044374 / KB2990214 "improvements" become necessary I can always add them back in later and things will be right as rain once again.  ie, at least as far as this list of "updates" is concerned, only add what is truly proven to be necessary.  Am I missing something?
 
Cheers and Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Am I missing something?

 

Yes :yes:, of course, you are missing some "improvements in the overall Windows Update client" (whatever they are :unsure:) and, JFYI, that's "why it was released as Important" :whistle:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/archive/2015/04/14/windows-servicing-releases-april-14-2015.aspx

 

;)

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me, bphlpt, that the possibility exists for instability on any system with a "mix and match" set of updates installed, simply because software components are being used together that aren't designed (or system tested) to be used as such.  I haven't ever perceived Microsoft's engineering to be any more thorough or modular than anyone else's.  It strikes me that one of the justifications for Microsoft forcing everyone to have every update moving forward might be to avoid just this kind of situation.

 

That being said, it occurred to me that one of the possible "improvements" in KB3044374 / KB2990214 might be an "improvement" for Microsoft (as so many of their recent changes have been) to add peer to peer update delivery into older Windows versions.  Noting that there is no way to configure an older system not to upload such information, one could imagine this being a very good justification for hiding these updates as you have done.  Would they dare?  I don't know.  So far I haven't noticed my systems uploading information not associated with my own activities.  But I don't watch the network interface constantly.

 

At this point we just don't know, and again it boils down to the question:

 

Do you want to maintain the partnership with Microsoft and accept updates from them as overall improvements on their say so, - or not?

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to further quote from the comments to that article:
 

Noel Carboni
16 Apr 2015 6:02 PM

Case in point, from the update description: 

"Install this update to resolve issues in Windows. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article for more information. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer."

What issues? And for whom? Be specific.

The complete listing mentioned says, in its entirety,

"This article describes an update that enables you to upgrade your computer from Windows 8.1 to a later version of Windows. This update has prerequisites."

Now you tell us it's important not to skip this update because of some unspecified other improvements. Just EXACTLY what might those be? Peer to peer update sharing? What? Be specific.

-Noel

 
Since the author never responded to the above, I'll continue to wait.
 
Cheers and Regards

Edited by bphlpt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to muddy the water further but it's pertinent and timely...

 

I see today that a brand new update has appeared:

 

Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: August 2015

 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3075851

 

 

 

This article describes an update that contains some improvements to Windows Update Client in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1. This update also resolves an issue in which certain Windows Update operations fail when you install Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: July 2015 (3065987) on Windows 7 Embedded editions.

 

"Some improvements", and no mention of "Windows 10"...

 

I don't think we can maintain any reasonable expectation that Microsoft will be providing any more detailed information from now on.

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...