Windows updates and shutdown/startup

[ChrisGreaves]

Last thing at night I power OFF this HP15 laptop and walk out of the room.
Some nights, as I turn to walk away I notice "Please do not turn off your computer" and think "Thing is updating itself"

When I wake, I power ON said laptop, expecting it to reboot (and AutoExec.bat) by the time I return with a coffee.

Nowadays this doesn't happen; I see a screen that says "You are 95% there!" (without telling me 95% of what), and I sip my coffee while I wait for this laptop to sort out itself.

How's my logic? I maintain that an operating system of even standard dimension ought to be able to update itself without user intervention - in the case mentioned above, without waiting for a user power-ON.

Why can't the update phase of last night turn my manual SHUTDOWN into an effective RESTART and implement a SHUTDOWN once that restart is finished.?
So that when I power ON in the morning all that basic housemaid stuff is complete and I can get to work?

Computers are good at doing the boring and repetitive stuff; I wouldn't be in the game otherwise.

If you are thinking "What about Chris's Autoexec.bat?" where he does specific tasks first thing each DAY, why can't an operating system of even standard dimension, set itself a flag that inhibits the stuff in C:\Users\Chris077\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\ for the immediately following reboot?

Cheers, Chris

[Jay Freedman]

Why can't it...? The obvious answer is that the Windows development team has never been assigned a task to write that functionality into the OS's code.

If you want to extend the question to the next step -- why hasn't the OS been designed to do those things? -- the probable answer(s) involve the economics of additional programming and testing against an almost infinite number of hardware/software combinations; statistics regarding the prevalence of users who install Autoexec.bat files and other startup software; and how many users submit change requests of this kind, compared to the number of requests for all other changes.

My main system runs 24/7 because I participate in various projects with BOINC. If I don't explicitly start an update, it will start itself sometime after midnight and automatically reboot when it's done. The only way I know there has been an update is by looking at the dates in the update history (unless something has gone bump in the night).

[BobH]

Why power off nightly? IME doing so caused more problems than letting it run. I am on an old HP laptop that stays plugged into the 'mains' and only gets restarted when the power fails or I force it to. It does on some occasions update and restart but that's based on scheduling I set up.

[ChrisGreaves]

Why can't it...? The obvious answer is that the Windows development team has never been assigned a task to write that functionality into the OS's code.

Hi Jay. Thanks for confirming my fears and beliefs: "Economics".

This prompts the question (I think the phrase is) of why MSoft didn't assign the cash to implement smooth-updating, and I think I already know the answer to that one ("MSoft is a marketing business, not a software house"). Still it seems to me that with MSoft's recent (last ten years or so) drive to make sure everyone is updated, they would have implemented the code to splice in an extra restart-before-shutdown just to ensure that updates were installed without user's messing things up by intervening.

... additional programming and testing against an almost infinite number of hardware/software combinations; statistics regarding the prevalence of users who install Autoexec.bat files and other startup software; and how many users submit change requests of this kind, compared to the number of requests for all other changes.

I can't think of how different configurations would effect the splicing on one extra restart into the scheme.
We are talking about MSoft effecting a restart on my behalf (indeed, effecting a restart and THEN my requested shutdown, so that the machine is powered off overnight).
To the best of my knowledge all laptops and PCs have a power switch; that is a basic component of a personal computer, and it is at that level that we are operating. Number of USB ports or acreage of installed applications has nothing to do with it. As you point out my use of "autoexec.bat" was a simple manoeuvre to lump "startup software", whatever is in there, into the equation.
In cartoon terms I'm thinking of a little hand that extends from the box to press down a power-switch, then retracts back into the box. Nothing at all to do with hardware/software configuration.

My main system runs 24/7 because I participate in various projects with BOINC. If I don't explicitly start an update, it will start itself sometime after midnight and automatically reboot when it's done. The only way I know there has been an update is by looking at the dates in the update history (unless something has gone bump in the night).

Well, quite. I agree that for systems that need to stay powered on and running my issue is irrelevant. My life is simple nowadays - one Home Edition laptop, no servers, no BBS running and so on.
Not until I began this reply to your post did I realize how the current MS method went against their own culture.

MS has invested a small amount of cash to implement the message "Please do not turn off your computer", so the particular place in the updating software is well known. We know that software can leave data to be used by the next update - that's how MS is able to remind me that You are 95% there!". MSWindows is hell-bent on installing updates. Why not a small piece of code to delay a shutdown to be a restart and then shutdown?

{{{ FWIW my restartable document conversion job in Win95 did just that - Excel preserved a bit of restart data on the hard drive, then forced a reboot, and the Autoexec.bat fired up MSWord which loaded a template which detected the restart data and reported, then skipped, the offending document file.}}}

I think that my logic is correct; I suspect that the situation is brought about by sloppy thinking at the design level. Or macro-economics ("Well, the team that might have done that is scheduled to be decommissioned in October; Sorry!") or similar.

MSoft goes out of its way to push updates - You can delay the inevitable by 5/45 days and then that's it; you must succumb ...

Cheers, Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

Why power off nightly? IME doing so caused more problems than letting it run. I am on an old HP laptop that stays plugged into the 'mains' and only gets restarted when the power fails or I force it to. It does on some occasions update and restart but that's based on scheduling I set up.

Hi Bob.
The answer to your question is two-fold: "Partly historical" and "Partly personal".

The Historical: Since the dawn of my personal computer experience I have powered off. First with the TRS-80s in 1982. The school required all equipment to be powered off before we left. Then with my first PC (Radio-shack MC-10) because the then-wife insisted that the table be cleared before we set it for supper. The MC-10 was the size of a paper-back novel and sat in the bookshelves when not in use. We needed the radio/cassette player for music while we dined. My first XT-chassis sounded like it drained 25% of the Niagara Falls power stations and, well, we just turned off all appliances except the refrigerator when we went to bed.
Not one of those reasons is relevant today.

Once I got into Config.sys and Autoexec.bat and my first hard-drive (20 MB if I remember well) I discovered the SUBST command and could equate a hard drive letter to a folder path, and back Then (Win 3.1, Win95) the only way to reset that SUBST command effect was to reboot. That was the start of a necessary reboot and the start of special coding in Autoexec.bat for first-boot-of-the-day requirements.

Of course, once I could detect first-boot-of-the-day I discovered all sorts of things that I should do on the first boot: Check incoming Email, record the electricity meter data, check my calendar for the day, check for upcoming birthdays, check New Posts in Eileen's Lounge, ...
Computers are good for boring and repetitive tasks, keeping track of things, reminders etc.

The Historical has segued into The Personal, you see, and now that my system is set up to be a humble yet private secretary "I don't know how I would do without it?"

Cheers, Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

FWIW this topic started by Ted Myers sent me off looking for "sign-in options" which led me to this page and I found this on my HP15 Home Edition system:-

Untitled.png

I am not sure where this fits into the scheme of things.
I suspect it means that IF MS wanted to replace my Shutdown with a Restart-Shutdown sequence, then I have already conceded permission for it do just that without needing me to be around and insert a password or a fingerprint.
Cheers, Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

How's my logic? I maintain that an operating system of even standard dimension ought to be able to update itself without user intervention - in the case mentioned above, without waiting for a user power-ON.

I am running Windows Update on a Win10 ACER laptop.
I said "restart" and received a message "save your work?" which I thought odd because this latop is doing no work except for settings and tuning.
I chose Cancel.
No work (documents, workbooks) were apparent, so I chose the icon at the bottom-left, chose the power button and noticed buttons marked :

"Update and Restart"
and
"Update and Shutdown"

which, I think, supports my contention that the code is there and could be used quite easily.

Cheers, Chris

[JoeP]

@Chris, what kind of reboot would you have the system perform? A full restart with hardware detection and normal boot? A full restart with hardware detection and a safe mode boot? A warm start with a normal boot? Keep on going with various combinations. In a scenario with a "normal" boot process, would you provide options to interrupt the boot or not process startup programs? Remember that each scenario you enable would require more development time and money, more testing time and money, and more support time and money.

I suggest that you use the Feedback Hub to suggest a change. If there is enough community support, Microsoft will pay attention and respond. You may not like the response but they will respond if there is enough interest shown.

[ChrisGreaves]

@Chris, what kind of reboot would you have the system perform? A full restart with hardware detection and normal boot? A full restart with hardware detection and ...

Hi Joe; your scenarios are valid, but in the situation I mentioned none of them had specific application.
When I went to bed, I powered off expecting that in the morning I would power on and have the system ready to do work for me.
I did not expect an extra delay of (five? ten?) minutes.

My contention that "... an operating system ... ought to be able to update itself without user intervention ..." is, I believe, still valid.

What did I do between my power-off and my power-on that needed any decision-making on my part? I was not thinking about warm/cold/hot boots, normal or abnormal. Just "do what you do when I turn on the power in the morning".

In my simple-user mode I neither know nor care what sort of a restart it was; I will leave that up to the Windows Update process.
In effect, Win11 spent the entire night waiting to tell me "I'll be done in a minute or so ..." instead of, well, just finishing the job as it could have done.

In future, when I power off and walk away and see "Please do not turn off your computer" I could easily say "after I have read my book and before I turn off the bedside light, I should power on the machine and leave it running the rest of the night".
There is no thinking to be done by me, no decision-making is required. Win11 is powering off with an anthropomorphic chuckle to itself saying "Heh heh! Won't he be ticked off tomorrow morning when he finds out he has to wait while I finish the update".

I believe that my logic is correct.

Cheers, Chris

[Rebel]

My contention that "... an operating system ... ought to be able to update itself without user intervention ..." is, I believe, still valid.

Your contention is probably correct (I'm sure that Microsoft has code that would accomplish that exact task). But I can imagine the gnashing of teeth and the screams of outrage if MS implemented such a procedure "without user intervention". Many users still object to the fact that MS is FORCING them to update periodically, let alone doing this without any input on their part. You provide as an example, ONE particular scenario (shutting down at bed time). But how many countless particular and unique scenarios would MS have to take into account to even consider trying to implement such a task? And do you honestly think that many users consider this to be a major problem or would possibly benefit from an updated procedure?

As Joe suggested (if you feel that this is a major impediment or flaw in the windows system), then by all means "use the Feedback Hub to suggest a change. If there is enough community support, Microsoft will pay attention and respond. You may not like the response but they will respond if there is enough interest shown." I suspect that this would certainly not be anywhere close to even being considered.

[JoeP]

Windows will normally complete an update, at least to the point of user login, without intervention once you initiate the update process. You interrupted the update process. Windows allowed you to do that and then completed the process when you turned the machine on. Would it be better if Windows did not allow you to power down until the update had been completed?