-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
how to disable windows auto reboot?
- Thread starter XXXXXX
- Start date
Originally posted by: XXXXXX
i mean the auto reboot function after auto updated. it is very annoying cause sometimes it reboot at the wrong time. :Q
My Computer / Properties / Automatic updates. Change from Automatic to 'Downlod updates for me, but let me choose when to intsall them"
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: XXXXXX
i mean the auto reboot function after auto updated. it is very annoying cause sometimes it reboot at the wrong time. :Q
My Computer / Properties / Automatic updates. Change from Automatic to 'Downlod updates for me, but let me choose when to intsall them"
i see. thanks for the info. but now the auto reboot windows always pop up within 3-5mins, any method can close it?
Originally posted by: bsobel
You can turn that off in group policy.
where???
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: XXXXXX
i mean the auto reboot function after auto updated. it is very annoying cause sometimes it reboot at the wrong time. :Q
My Computer / Properties / Automatic updates. Change from Automatic to 'Downlod updates for me, but let me choose when to intsall them"
Like Bosobel said, you should turn automatic updating OFF. This (download and application of updates) should be done manually with the computer dedicated to the update process with NO applications running at the time, IMO.
Originally posted by: wpshooter
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: XXXXXX
i mean the auto reboot function after auto updated. it is very annoying cause sometimes it reboot at the wrong time. :Q
My Computer / Properties / Automatic updates. Change from Automatic to 'Downlod updates for me, but let me choose when to intsall them"
Like Bosobel said, you should turn automatic updating OFF. This (download and application of updates) should be done manually with the computer dedicated to the update process with NO applications running at the time, IMO.
Why?
We routinely update thousands of computers via SMS. Believe me, nobody does anything manually, and nobody stops running apps just to do a Windows update.
I suggest just letting Windows handle it at 3:00am and reboot the box when the prompt comes up; if that's not practical, set options to change the timing to something more suitable.
Originally posted by: dclive
Originally posted by: wpshooter
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: XXXXXX
i mean the auto reboot function after auto updated. it is very annoying cause sometimes it reboot at the wrong time. :Q
My Computer / Properties / Automatic updates. Change from Automatic to 'Downlod updates for me, but let me choose when to intsall them"
Like Bosobel said, you should turn automatic updating OFF. This (download and application of updates) should be done manually with the computer dedicated to the update process with NO applications running at the time, IMO.
Why?
We routinely update thousands of computers via SMS. Believe me, nobody does anything manually, and nobody stops running apps just to do a Windows update.
I suggest just letting Windows handle it at 3:00am and reboot the box when the prompt comes up; if that's not practical, set options to change the timing to something more suitable.
For what it's worth (since I think I was misquoted). I agree with you Dclive, I just mentioned turning off automatic updates to manual to fix the OP reboot issue.
Fair enough.
I think it's inherently dangerous to have an unpatched machine these days, and I think relying on a user to do the updates (or hoping that you catch the updates manually) just doesn't seem wise in this day and age.
Feel free to disagree - I'm open for discussion on this - but to forgo updates (Microsoft says the third world is at what... 50% patched with even the basic SP2?) strikes me as crazy except under very specific circumstances.
(Some of those being app compatibility and testing requirements, I'll be first to suggest.)
I think it's inherently dangerous to have an unpatched machine these days, and I think relying on a user to do the updates (or hoping that you catch the updates manually) just doesn't seem wise in this day and age.
Feel free to disagree - I'm open for discussion on this - but to forgo updates (Microsoft says the third world is at what... 50% patched with even the basic SP2?) strikes me as crazy except under very specific circumstances.
(Some of those being app compatibility and testing requirements, I'll be first to suggest.)
I went into a Dixons (major electrical outlet that took over PCWorld and a few other major chains) in the UK yesterday.
They have a system that was built for them by HP, luckily for them before pcworld (herby known as pcSpak) was taken over.
On their own systems, they use XP SP1 and have access to the internet, probably through a proxy (they wouldn't let me see (haha)).
If a major retailer in the UK is using SP1 on their machines, and it was a crappy system - it crashed twice whilst I was there for 3 minutes and asked them to look up something for me, we are truly doomed.
Myself, well - I usually work on standalone or SOHO computers, I find that picking and choosing patches is best. A high %age of clients have called me in as a result of a highly patched system.
I agree that it isn't ideal, but, they have the option to autoupdate and take the chance, or to not autoupdate, and have a healthy firewall running with complete AV solution.
Better the devil you know.
They have a system that was built for them by HP, luckily for them before pcworld (herby known as pcSpak) was taken over.
On their own systems, they use XP SP1 and have access to the internet, probably through a proxy (they wouldn't let me see (haha)).
If a major retailer in the UK is using SP1 on their machines, and it was a crappy system - it crashed twice whilst I was there for 3 minutes and asked them to look up something for me, we are truly doomed.
Myself, well - I usually work on standalone or SOHO computers, I find that picking and choosing patches is best. A high %age of clients have called me in as a result of a highly patched system.
I agree that it isn't ideal, but, they have the option to autoupdate and take the chance, or to not autoupdate, and have a healthy firewall running with complete AV solution.
Better the devil you know.
>>I find that picking and choosing patches is best.
How does the average user know which to pick? Do they religiously head on over to Microsoft on the second Tuesday of every month? Do you think most people, even here, would even know what day that is?
>>A high %age of clients have called me in as a result of a highly patched system.
What does this mean? Patches are necessary to keep the system protected; what do they call you about?
>>or to not autoupdate, and have a healthy firewall running with complete AV solution.
Depends on how much you trust the firewall and the rules the user sets up - and it depends on the user not allowing everything because they get tired of the prompts.
How does the average user know which to pick? Do they religiously head on over to Microsoft on the second Tuesday of every month? Do you think most people, even here, would even know what day that is?
>>A high %age of clients have called me in as a result of a highly patched system.
What does this mean? Patches are necessary to keep the system protected; what do they call you about?
>>or to not autoupdate, and have a healthy firewall running with complete AV solution.
Depends on how much you trust the firewall and the rules the user sets up - and it depends on the user not allowing everything because they get tired of the prompts.
I agree that it isn't ideal, but, they have the option to autoupdate and take the chance, or to not autoupdate, and have a healthy firewall running with complete AV solution.
Better the devil you know.
I don't have a big problem with that for a more experienced user. But, for the vast mass market, the default behaviour of auto-updating is prefered. As a general rule, we should be telling users to leave it alone. (I had a nice friendly argument with MS about this years ago when they defaulted this to off, they finally came around 😉)
Bill
I agree that most users don't want to play around too much.
But, I also think that we should be in control of what is put on our systems.
In answer to you dclive, the average user won't know which patches to use, and sometimes most 'experts' wouldn't either - Agreed.
The callouts I was referring to are usually to do with something along the lines of 'Ohmygodmycomputerdownloadedsomethingautomaticallyandwontreboot'.
After, if we are lucky tracking down the 'something' it SOMETIMES (yes, not always) turns out to be a patch. Don't ask me to document which patches have done this, but there are times (not often) when calls come in pretty simultaneously. On those days I know a new variant of some nasty worm is showing, or it is Microsoft Patch Day yeehah.
Sometimes the patches are released to cure another patch and often, the patches, as i mentioned earlier, are not needed for most users.
YES, you are right, again. I will cut and paste to stay friends with you......
I agree that most users don't want to play around too much.
and
...the average user won't know which patches to use, and sometimes most 'experts' wouldn't either.
Onto the next point about firewalls.
Well, most (all?) firewalls with reputation update their engine every so often.
I've never had something slip by my firewalls (hardware and software), and if I did, I am sure that other ppl would have as well, which would pretty much mean that that company goes bust due to bad publicity.
Onto antivirus - again. I completely agree with you that av progs can't be expected/trusted to keep up with the 200+(?) viriiiiiii that appear every day, but then I try and get the point over to the client about security. (Not always successfully)
Also, patches are NOT needed to keep a system healthy.
If a system is healthy, then it is healthy. A patch won't make it more healthy. This is the same argument as 'You must update your BIOS when a new rev. comes out." - Not at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Patches are usually to fix a hole/vulnerability that has just been discovered, or not?
MS aren't always that fast to fix a vulnerability (just go to Gibson research Dep't for starters. - Although tis a bit out of date at the moment.)
All in all,
Yes, you are right (I say it again) that most if not all users are not gonna be able to differentiate what they need.
But if it is for security reasons, then mostly I would dl the patch.
If it was to make pretty colours come on my desktop when I type in 'more flowers please', then no i wouldn't.
No offense to you meant by all of the above at all - this is typed with the greatest respect for your advice that you have given.
But, I also think that we should be in control of what is put on our systems.
In answer to you dclive, the average user won't know which patches to use, and sometimes most 'experts' wouldn't either - Agreed.
The callouts I was referring to are usually to do with something along the lines of 'Ohmygodmycomputerdownloadedsomethingautomaticallyandwontreboot'.
After, if we are lucky tracking down the 'something' it SOMETIMES (yes, not always) turns out to be a patch. Don't ask me to document which patches have done this, but there are times (not often) when calls come in pretty simultaneously. On those days I know a new variant of some nasty worm is showing, or it is Microsoft Patch Day yeehah.
Sometimes the patches are released to cure another patch and often, the patches, as i mentioned earlier, are not needed for most users.
YES, you are right, again. I will cut and paste to stay friends with you......
I agree that most users don't want to play around too much.
and
...the average user won't know which patches to use, and sometimes most 'experts' wouldn't either.
Onto the next point about firewalls.
Well, most (all?) firewalls with reputation update their engine every so often.
I've never had something slip by my firewalls (hardware and software), and if I did, I am sure that other ppl would have as well, which would pretty much mean that that company goes bust due to bad publicity.
Onto antivirus - again. I completely agree with you that av progs can't be expected/trusted to keep up with the 200+(?) viriiiiiii that appear every day, but then I try and get the point over to the client about security. (Not always successfully)
Also, patches are NOT needed to keep a system healthy.
If a system is healthy, then it is healthy. A patch won't make it more healthy. This is the same argument as 'You must update your BIOS when a new rev. comes out." - Not at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Patches are usually to fix a hole/vulnerability that has just been discovered, or not?
MS aren't always that fast to fix a vulnerability (just go to Gibson research Dep't for starters. - Although tis a bit out of date at the moment.)
All in all,
Yes, you are right (I say it again) that most if not all users are not gonna be able to differentiate what they need.
But if it is for security reasons, then mostly I would dl the patch.
If it was to make pretty colours come on my desktop when I type in 'more flowers please', then no i wouldn't.
No offense to you meant by all of the above at all - this is typed with the greatest respect for your advice that you have given.
I think we're going to disagree about patches not being needed to keep a system healthy, but we probably just have different definitions of healthy. I believe they help a system get even *better*, but if you believe a system is good enough (and for most people, that's certainly the case) without any updates from MS, more power to you. Clearly, for example, XP SP0 was good enough to ship in 2001, and everyone liked it - there's nothing inherent in the release of XP SP2 that makes XP SP0 junk. It's all a question of risk and how much risk you like to take, given the known exploits that are out there.
You can still be exploited, even with a great firewall. SPI in a FW only goes so far - if your browser has an exploit against it, the best FW in the world won't help one bit. And browser exploits are now common.
Also, FYI, any issues caused by a MS patch or noticed while a MS patch is installed will give you free support from Microsoft. However, I'd be willing to bet that if MS forced a reboot prior to installing a MS patch, their "problems" caused by patches would nosedive.
By all means feel free to disagree; lots of good opinions (based on good reasoning!) are one of the reasons this forum is so great.
You can still be exploited, even with a great firewall. SPI in a FW only goes so far - if your browser has an exploit against it, the best FW in the world won't help one bit. And browser exploits are now common.
Also, FYI, any issues caused by a MS patch or noticed while a MS patch is installed will give you free support from Microsoft. However, I'd be willing to bet that if MS forced a reboot prior to installing a MS patch, their "problems" caused by patches would nosedive.
By all means feel free to disagree; lots of good opinions (based on good reasoning!) are one of the reasons this forum is so great.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
