|
Is there any date for when they're gonna take another swing at 1806?
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
It's 1809 and last word was early November but who knows when a new big defect is reported seemingly every god drat week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
For some positive news, 1803 seems pretty stable now. It's a good time to upgrade to it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Im on 1809 and having some weird issues connecting to SMB shares. I have no idea why or what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Because Windows 10 is now in perpetual beta
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Im on 1809 and having some weird issues connecting to SMB shares. I have no idea why or what. SMB1 is disabled, there is a reg entry to change to re-enable it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:SMB1 is disabled, there is a reg entry to change to re-enable it. These are linux SMB servers with ZFS and I definitely enabled SMB 3. Maybe that is it though.. somehow. I'll look into it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Also: don't do it unless it's only to migrate to storage that supports something better. In that case, turn it back off when you're done and throw the old unit in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
This finally got us to move our iseries to smb2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
redeyes posted:These are linux SMB servers with ZFS and I definitely enabled SMB 3. Maybe that is it though.. somehow. I'll look into it. Thanks. Don't enable SMB1. I've got ZFS shares running no problem. Something else is screwy here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Cryptolocker's children may be cute, but you don't want to meet them with SMB1 enabled on your network.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:That's a good NVMe SSD. It really does sound like the issue is Windows background activity, especially when you can't identify any obvious 3rd-party applications using excessive resources in Task Manager. Definitely let the system do what it needs to do by leaving it on for awhile when you're not using it. Following up on this. Knock on wood it hasn't happened in a few days. I guess it really was just the install settling in. I didn't figure it for indexing because A) I didn't copy any personal files over so most of my user folder is empty B) I've never seen it hammer the system like this on my older burner laptops C) I did leave it awake and plugged in the first night after reinstall for it to do things like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/windows-10-october-2018-update-still-not-released-running-out-of-october/ People said I was crazy for formatting and reinstalling 1803. We're going into November and 1809 is still not re-released. Friendly reminder that it doesn't hurt to adjust your personal PC's Windows Update Group Policy to "Semi-Annual Channel" so that it waits 3-4 months before installing the latest feature update.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
PUBLIC TOILET posted:https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/windows-10-october-2018-update-still-not-released-running-out-of-october/ You absolutely were crazy, 1809 runs perfectly fine and possible data deletion bugs during installation wouldn't be a concern with a fresh install.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
I'm still annoyed that "check for updates" actually means "make me an alpha tester for buggy updates without informing me" instead of "apply pending updates now because I'm going to power down or restart anyway" like I'd always assumed. Then again, it hasn't been a huge issue until recently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I'm still annoyed that "check for updates" actually means "make me an alpha tester for buggy updates without informing me" instead of "apply pending updates now because I'm going to power down or restart anyway" like I'd always assumed. Then again, it hasn't been a huge issue until recently. It doesn't do the first thing, and why on earth would the second thing be named "check for updates"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It doesn't do the first thing quote:why on earth would the second thing be named "check for updates"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:The description is 90% correct. Replace "alpha" with "beta" if you want to be pedantic. The manual check gives you updates that the automatic check doesn't, updates that not done being beta tested. No, it doesn't. Unless you've already changed other settings. Dylan16807 posted:Because "install updates automatically" is turned on, so you expect it to check and then trigger everything else to flush the update pipeline. And that is what the button does, on top of secretly opting you in to a different set of updates. That's never been what "check for updates" means in Windows Update. It also again doesn't tell the Illuminati to give you secret updates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, it doesn't. Unless you've already changed other settings. I was exaggerating a little bit, but only a little. I don't have the original article, but this one states the same thing. From MS directly: Microsoft posted:We intentionally start each feature update rollout slowly, closely monitoring feedback before offering the update more broadly. In this case the update was only available to those who manually clicked on “check for updates” in Windows settings. So yes, 1809 wasn't being pushed out to everyone immediately (and for good reason) but those who manually checked for updates did indeed get it earlier than they would have automatically. So yes, I was being hyperbolic, but what I wrote was otherwise correct, per MS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
It shouldn't really come as a surprise that update rollouts are slightly staggered because otherwise Microsoft is effectively getting DDOS'd by a billion machines checking for updates simultaneously on Tuesdays. Assign some machines to check later, but if they happen to check early because of user request then go ahead and hand them the update that's ready.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I was exaggerating a little bit, but only a little. I don't have the original article, but this one states the same thing. From MS directly: So that's something entirely different from what you claimed, do you really not see that? It was already considered final release ready update, and there's always going to be some group that goes first. Many people received 1809 who hadn't done anything special on their machines either, as they'd been randomly picked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So that's something entirely different from what you claimed, do you really not see that? It was already considered final release ready update, and there's always going to be some group that goes first. Many people received 1809 who hadn't done anything special on their machines either, as they'd been randomly picked. Like I said, I was being hyperbolic, and you're being pedantic (no surprise there.) I didn't literally mean "alpha tester," rather, that was a reference to the updates being full of multiple, rather significant bugs, as if it wasn't tested properly before being made available for consumers. The complaint is not that the updates are rolled out progressively (which is good, because among other things that lets them catch problems before they've been propagated to most users, which is what happened here with 1809.) The issue is that "check for updates" puts you at the front of the queue when you'd otherwise receive updates later, (and this is exacerbated by the aforementioned game-breaking (so to speak) bugs,) while MS didn't exactly make this public knowledge. The effect of this is that the user inadvertently becomes a software tester while under the false pretense that they're really just getting their system up-to-date. As I mentioned, I habitually check for updates when I turn on a Windows system, because often they're off several days at a time and I'd like to have them work on updates immediately so they're ready to apply when I'm ready to reboot or power off, rather than wasting more time. Also, I do have a PMS system that's on 24/7 and occasionally is transcoding video, and I want that to be ready to install updates immediately so it doesn't reboot in the middle of a transcode batch or at some other inopportune time. Again, the issue is that "check for updates" doesn't simply mean "update Windows," it means, in effect, per MS's own explanation, "grab the buggy update earlier than I normally would receive it." On top of that, while yes, it was rolled out automatically to some users early, the update was quickly pulled (2 days) so that many users who checked early might not have ever received it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:
It has never ever meant that, so why are you complaining about this? It means, check for updates. Go load up Windows 98, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8 - in all of them checking for updates doesn't mean updating in itself. Atomizer posted:
Why did you explicitly ask for updates before Windows would normally check for updates, unless you wanted to receive an update earlier than normal, again? It seems like what you're furious about is that it did exactly what it said it would do instead of reading your mind to know that when you check for updates you want nothing to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
"Check for updates" kind of does mean "update" in Windows 10, it doesn't separate out the installation process like previous versions of Windows did. Personally, I like the fact checking puts you at the front of the queue. If if wasn't interested in that I wouldn't be pressing that button.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
I hated when I had a (Nexus) Android device and a new OS version I wanted rolled out. I'd click "Check for updates" and it would tell me I had the latest version; if I wanted to update I either had to wait up to a few weeks for the OTA rollout or hunt down some files and have to plug in the device to my computer to do it manually. Microsoft is in the wrong for not testing/fixing things well enough before releasing new versions. That's what people should be getting worked up over, and not whether the button itself is working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
astral posted:I hated when I had a (Nexus) Android device and a new OS version I wanted rolled out. I'd click "Check for updates" and it would tell me I had the latest version; if I wanted to update I either had to wait up to a few weeks for the OTA rollout or hunt down some files and have to plug in the device to my computer to do it manually. Yeah, if I hit the "check for updates" button, I want whatever the most recent update is to download and install now. What I don't want is for that most recent update to be a bug-ridden piece of poo poo because Microsoft decided to fire their QA department and made me do it as part of using their OS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Magnus Praeda posted:Yeah, if I hit the "check for updates" button, I want whatever the most recent update is to download and install now. What I don't want is for that most recent update to be a bug-ridden piece of poo poo because Microsoft decided to fire their QA department and made me do it as part of using their OS. They gave you this OS for free, so that's the least you can do to help this little cash-strapped startup. Think of all those volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
My HTPC installed 1809 automatically without me checking for updates. Perhaps it did this because peer to peer updates are enabled and it's on the same network as a PC I forced the update on. Anyway regardless of whether you need to click a button or not MS should not be pushing this sort of broken bullshit to non insiders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It has never ever meant that, so why are you complaining about this? It means, check for updates. Go load up Windows 98, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8 - in all of them checking for updates doesn't mean updating in itself. "Check for updates" does indeed begin updating as soon as it finds updates (it downloads them, then does part of the install, but waits to complete the installation after a reboot - this last part is the thing I was attempting to schedule by updating and rebooting at my convenience.) The issue is that there's the illusion that the updates you're getting will not delete user files and/or break built-in functionality. You know how if you want to DL some piece of software, you might have the option of "version 1.5 stable" or "version 1.6 beta/nightly/whatever?" That's the surreptitious thing about checking for updates manually - they didn't make it clear you were putting yourself at the front of the queue to test an unstable build. Also this: astral posted:Microsoft is in the wrong for not testing/fixing things well enough before releasing new versions. That's what people should be getting worked up over, and not whether the button itself is working as intended. ...and: Magnus Praeda posted:Yeah, if I hit the "check for updates" button, I want whatever the most recent update is to download and install now. What I don't want is for that most recent update to be a bug-ridden piece of poo poo because Microsoft decided to fire their QA department and made me do it as part of using their OS. ...but not: Lambert posted:"Check for updates" kind of does mean "update" in Windows 10, it doesn't separate out the installation process like previous versions of Windows did. ...because there should be a difference between updating now, and as above, installing an unstable, buggy PoS early.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:That's the surreptitious thing about checking for updates manually - they didn't make it clear you were putting yourself at the front of the queue to test an unstable build. Once again. This didn't happen. It was a final build intended for general release. You need to stop lying and then getting angry about your own lies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
You know 1809 was the stable build right? It just had a bug. That does suck, but if you want to be safe then don't update immediately, and that's what pressing "check for updates" does Feels like they used to treat the big updates as more of a major event you could delay or download early, but they don't seem to do that anymore. Just seems to be more of a "bunch of updates" now
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It was a final build intended for general release. You need to stop lying and then getting angry about your own lies. It was a final build, but not anymore lol. Windows loves pushing untested releases nowadays and despite being labeled "final" or "master" they are just unfinished garbage. so it's understandable that people get irritated at being pushed to the front of the line to use that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:"Check for updates" does indeed begin updating as soon as it finds updates (it downloads them, then does part of the install, but waits to complete the installation after a reboot - this last part is the thing I was attempting to schedule by updating and rebooting at my convenience.) The issue is that there's the illusion that the updates you're getting will not delete user files and/or break built-in functionality. For some reason you are mixing up the issue of "Check for updates" actually checking for updates and downloading and installing them, with the issue that one of the updates had a bug in it. Must the "check for updates" button first connect to the psychic network to predict that the update that's available has a bug, and block it? The button has a function - that function is to check for the latest updates, download and install them. You seem upset with this because the update had a bug. That is not the fault of the loving button, so stop complaining about the update button performing the loving update that you asked it to perform. The two issues are completely separate, I don't understand why you think they are related in any way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:You know 1809 was the stable build right? It just had a bug. That does suck, but if you want to be safe then don't update immediately, and that's what pressing "check for updates" does You mean a software company can't test for every single piece of snowflake hardware and software installation setup that could possibly exist? That's crazy talk. MS literally can't win with these people (and I'm no MS apologist, I just understand things like logic). If they test more exhaustively than they already do, and hit every esoteric hardware bit they can get their hands on, and validate even the most ridiculous combinations that anyone could put together, then everyone would be bitching about how long everything is taking and that their updates are never going to come out. On the other hand, when they test for a shitton of basic combinations and make sure that everything will work out of the box for 99% of the population, then that 1% gets bitchy as gently caress and we have to deal with tens of people complaining about how the OS is a basket of poo poo and completely broken out of the box, when it's actually not. And that's not even factoring in the people who intentionally break their systems by disabling services that don't need disabling (UAC) or flipping registry bits that should be relegated to enterprise device managers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
I wonder how many people they actually have on the Insider program, since those people are the ones running the test builds to iron out these issues. And I wonder how many of those users actually file bug reports. Like I see a lot of people complain about issues with the beta builds, as though they expect them to be finished and free of problems - feels like they're probably not gonna be proactively engaged in the feedback and refinement process Having a lot of people use the product and provide data is helpful too, but with the amount of people disabling any telemetry they can find, is MS even getting any data from them? Wouldn't be surprised if the people most likely to use beta builds are the ones who are most dedicated to locking down Windows and its features as hard as possible. If there's no QA team and the testing stage involves a relatively small number of people (who often stonewall the developers) it's not really a surprise that there are big "wow really" bugs getting through
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
I wonder how many insiders run it on a real pc Vs a virtual machine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
c0burn posted:I wonder how many insiders run it on a real pc Vs a virtual machine. I was on the insider program from the time they announced it on my main PC (which I also use for work), but I haven't run an insider build in about a year now because the builds were just too unstable to be worth it. Switching to slow ring was actually worse because it took longer to get fixes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
MS said 1809 stable went out to those who manually clicked check for updates. Why is there a difference between those that manually update and PCs that automatically checked for updates around the same time? To my knowledge, you can't change the automatic update process itself. The only configurable is when your PC restarts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Pro and above can choose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
wolffenstein posted:MS said 1809 stable went out to those who manually clicked check for updates. Why is there a difference between those that manually update and PCs that automatically checked for updates around the same time? To my knowledge, you can't change the automatic update process itself. The only configurable is when your PC restarts. As has been mentioned before, it’s so Microsoft’s servers don’t poo poo themselves every time they release an update trying to update everyone at once. It has nothing to do with how “ready” the update is. They thought it was ready for everyone, and they were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 00:24
|
|
