Re: no matter what MS force on us
Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes?
#1 At home (and when out on a job) I only have expensive mobile internet available. Over here in NZ we really only have a couple of telcos, and both of them are pure evil (one being vodafone, the other one being even nastier!). I want to use my data when I want to, and I want to download updates when I want to, not at a time when it is inconvenient or expensive. I certainly don't want to be delayed on a job or even worse, run out of available data simply because MS decided they would chose that specific time to do updates (Ok, in reality on a job I would be using Linux anyway because I'm there to fix problems, not to experience sympathetic pains of also having a broken computer)
#2 Is much the same as #1. I have a computer repair shop. While a lot cheaper than a few years ago, small business broadband is still relatively expensive, especially if you go over your cap. Having a number of machines wanting to do updates over the course of a month could be very expensive. They could also slow down other transfers that we're wanting at that specific time. I don't want to be stuck at work waiting for some transfer to finish when I could be home (winter over here).
#3 During repair work we don't want updates at all as a badly timed set of updates can seriously screw up a machine. Sure, sometimes they can help but often they are a pain and, in the case of machines with over heating issues, can be fatal (if we're there we'll pull the power hopefully beforehand, but if we get sick of waiting and risk leaving a machine (even with added cooling).... There's several other times when updates will be a serious issue during repairs, like when there's some file system corruption going on. Admittedly at work we can (and will now have to) set parts of the network so that they simply cannot see MS's servers - but why should I have to piss around with my network simply because MS want to screw around with our ability to do updates when it is convenient or appropriate for us? (NOTE: Where possible/applicable we do try to deal with heating issues early and do image clients disks, but the problems are not always apparent when we first start diagnosing a machine)
#4 When I do use a Windows machine, it is because I want to use it. I don't want to wait endless hours for it to be able to start up or shut down. And yes, in some cases I do mean HOURS.. I also dual (actually often quad) boot Windows, Linux and others. Most of my work is done in Linux so that's the default boot option. Often I actually start Windows for some reason, see it doing its "please wait while we stuff you around for ages using a very poor and outdated update system" (this is on 7 and 8 (which has since been banished from my home) and I go off to do something else. When I come back I find I have to shut Linux down (which thankfully takes no more than 30 seconds, even with a lot of stuff open and after a pile of updates - MS should learn from this!) and restart Windows. Sometimes more than once. The problem is Windows is still incapable of doing updates without at least 2 reboots on a very regular basis, and of course since Linux boots by default, it can't complete it without me having to manually restart. Pro Tip : Linux does all the updating in the background. Sometimes a reboot is needed when some of the core system files are replaced, but it does not demand a reboot for updating a web browser and more importantly, it is only one reboot at most. Even more importantly, the updates are completely done before that one reboot - you only need to reboot to actually start using the new files. There is no impact on start up times, you're not waiting 5-55 minutes for the system to start; by the time the hardware starts booting the update process is already completed. MS should try to learn from this - it's only been standard in other OS's for how many years now?
#5 There have been many times updates have done nasty things, like making Win7 machines stop booting, breaking programs, and all sorts of other issues (this affects ALL os's at times). Some people actually like to be sure that an update is going to work before they let it in.
#6 I can see more and more people will actively use methods to block updates, making the security matters worse.
TL;DR : Some people pay a premium for data, sometimes we just want to use our computer within a minute or two or turning it on without waiting for the already over-long update process to complete, sometimes updates can happen at a time that causes significant problems, and sometimes they break things badly. So we want to do them when it's convenient (and affordable) for us - and when we've had a chance to see if there's any significant problems caused with these updates. Forcing them on people will only drive them elsewhere. (So please MS, keep up the good work! Windows 8 was great advertising for Linux, but maybe with 10 you can finish the job? :) )