• Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      And for a good reason too. People need to be opt-out to do them automatically, we know how XP looked like.

      • unfinished | 🇵🇸@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They do, you can opt-out if you want, but you don’t, unless you like malware. Windows is just an unsafe proprietary mess of a system. :-P

        • OpenStars@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I thought some of the older ones, like 2000, were more secure, with ability to access on-chip security features. So ofc they threw all that out in favor of 10, the final OS that would come as a subscription service, meaning that you’d never need to buy one again. And then they threw that out too, in favor of the next one… and on and on it goes:-P.

          I absolutely hate Windows:-(.

          • unfinished | 🇵🇸@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Never said it was user friendly, just pointed out it’s an option that exists. And it’s a good thing that this isn’t user friendly tbh, you dont want to run Windows without updates, if you care that much, just use Linux.

            • CronyAkatsuki@lemmy.cronyakatsuki.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Atleayt they should make the setting to enter a slower updating channel user friendly. That’s how I used before, with slower updated channel and deffering feature updates for a year and making security updates install on saturday’s when I don’t have to use my pc for productive tasks.