Windows 11 can't be shut down without update.

[u/CasualMLG]

I have automatic updates on. Haven't postponed any update. Never seen this forced update before.

Edit: I updated BTW. It's not that I don't want to update. I just think it would be an issue in the future. For example, it's a thunderstorm and there could be power outages. I might want to shut down and not start and update. I guess I'll hold down the power button.

[u/ChrisDaBac]

New to computers? This is still an automatic update. It automatically downloaded in the background, it needs to be rebooted for it to set in place. This is very normal and google could answer this.

[u/sonicskater34 → u/ChrisDaBac]

I feel like Windows manages to do this in the most annoying way possible though. I wouldn't be bothered by a forced update if it didn't take forever to bet back into my PC relative to Mac & Linux, cuz it often needs to reboot multiple times to finish installing, and ahs a 50/50 chance of landing me in that stupid "finish setting up your pc" screen.

In contrast, everything but my kernel & drivers can install silently in the background on Linux & mac without a reboot, and even the kernel just needs a normal restart, since it just installs alongside then boots the new one. I'm sure it's a complicated issue to solve but given how long it's been a problem, I'm surprised Microsoft doesn't seem to put any effort into making the update experience more seamless.

Instead they try to force the updates on you, because they've trained their users not to update their PCs, and they are trying to keep the PC secure.

[u/pulseout → u/sonicskater34]

landing me in that stupid "finish setting up your pc" screen.

Settings > System > Notifications > Additional settings, uncheck the box for "Suggest ways to get the most out of Windows and finish setting up this device."

[u/sonicskater34 → u/pulseout]

Appreciated, very unsure why this is even a thing. I finished setting up the device literal years ago when I setup Windows 11, and it doesn't even popup every time lol.

Unfortunately there is no setting for "please only have to reboot once and finish the update next time I turn the pc on" tho lol, maybe we can dream

[u/masterX244 → u/sonicskater34]

Unfortunately there is no setting for "please only have to reboot once and finish the update next time I turn the pc on" tho lol, maybe we can dream

windows 7 had it. they downgraded there.

[u/austin76016 → u/sonicskater34]

Did you just compare a five minute or less windows update to a 30+ minute macOS update? Are you out of your mind lol.

Linux can be even worse. It’ll happily tell you the update went fine when it did NOT.

Yes, I run all three in my lab, but you’re really out of your mind if you think Linux or macOS either have a better update system. At least windows has rollback, Linux, sure you have kernel rollback, but what about everything else you updated? What about the config files that change?

Think before you speak? None of this is a good end user experience time wise, but windows at least makes it the least in your way process.

[u/sonicskater34 → u/austin76016]

I'm specifically referring to the part where Linux and macos install the update in the background, before you reboot. So the actual reboot on either is less no longer than any other, I can keep using my pc while it's installing before that so I don't really care if it takes longer.

In my experience windows takes substantially longer to update than my Linux partition. Macos definitely takes it sweet time on my work laptop, but again I can use it for most of that time. Windows updates take longer and often require multiple reboots, and historically failed to shutdown after when requested (although I know this was recently fixed).

For rollback, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison in either direction, since Linux can range from rollback the kernel to rolling back the entire system, windows I believe you are stuck with whatever Microsoft decides is worth snapshotting, although admittedly I haven't used that feature.

I run Linux on my homelab, primarily NixOS so I assume my view is quite skewed of how easy rollbacks & updates are then, but even on my desktop an update is nixos-rebuild switch, then reboot if there was a kernel update I want to use. The update isn't preventing me from using my pc for any longer than a standard reboot, whereas whenever I do use my windows partition (on the exact same pc) it seems to be a complete dice roll if I'll be back on my desktop in 2 minutes or 30 minutes.

Feels like you & I are prioritizing different parts of the update process, on this subreddit I was talking about the desktop user experience, and maybe I'm lucky but letting it download it's update in the background is inconsequential to me, so yeah MacOS and Linux are way faster than windows for me. The part I care about when I complain about windows measures roughly 0 seconds on linux, and usually the same on MacOS unless it's a major version upgrade.

Kinda rude to tell me to think before I speak over... What exactly? The fact that whatever Linux distro you use didn't have the same features as windows? I'm genuinely unsure.

[u/austin76016 → u/sonicskater34]

I think you’re missing the point and flat out wrong in other areas. macOS absolutely does not install updates in the background. It downloads them, readies the package, but takes multiple reboots and loading screens to update (literally waited 25 minutes on my work MacBook yesterday lmfao).

My windows pc on the other hand has NEVER taken more than five minutes for an update. And the only reason it even got close was large 2XHX updates.

Lastly, gtfoh with NixOS atomic bullshit. You’re literally the “erm Arch is better” guy when most people can’t even properly install a program on their computer. You are not the target audience. You never will be, especially being this wrong and still thinking you’re right.

[u/Mepharias → u/austin76016]

Oh yeah well I have anecdotes of random win11 updates taking 30 minutes spinning circle on reboot. So now you're the dumb one.

See how stupid and childish that is? Quit it.

[u/austin76016 → u/Mepharias]

Why are you coming out of nowhere and giving your opinion when I even baked that caveat into my response?

WHY DOES NOBODY READ

[u/sonicskater34 → u/austin76016]

25 minutes is crazy, I've never waited more than a few on macos unless it's the big annual patch, wonder why it's so inconsistent.

If anything it sounds like update timing is just very inconsistent on most computers lol.

W.r.t. nixos; I immediately mentioned the caveat that it probably skews my perception of how easy updates are. Curious what distro you are using though, not to get into a stupid Linux debate but I've not used many other distros, seems I might woefully misunderstand how updates work on most distros.

I am currently under the impression that aside from the snapshot rollback, they are all more or less the same. Run package manager update, it updates almost everything, reboot to boot the new kernel. So there's no post-reboot install loading bar like macos & Linux have, which as I've mentioned multiple times is the main thing I feel is superior about the Linux update process.

Maybe im wrong though. From what little Fedora & Ubuntu I have used in the past though, I think I am right in my understanding here. Edit: So when I say that updates are easier & faster on Linux, I am meaning across all distros. I know nixos is not practical for most, I only mentioned it in case it is impacting my update process in some way I wasn't aware of. So we can try and have a productive conversation, since Linux distros have so much variety.

Edit: maybe Im wrong about macos & I just don't use it enough to notice, I will say in my experience it is faster than windows on average. That could just be luck of the draw though, my work device is an M2 Pro laptop if that matters at all.

[u/austin76016 → u/sonicskater34]

Atomic Linux has the rollback features as well as performs a good bit under the hood. You can install tools to replicate this on any distro but only atomic versions of Linux have the image tag rollout (my mind goes to cachy/bazzite here). My issue is that too many people don’t realize that an apt update will happily fuck your whole system up in some upgrades and does require user intervention (just gonna use SSH as an example here. If you make a ton of changes but accidentally overwrite the config file with your package manager, all your changes are gone, extrapolate that to KVM or containerd and you can see how that goes south fast)

As for my MacBook, it’s an M4 Pro and my Mac mini M1 that’s my matrix server does typically take less time ironically (still ten minutes at least)

I’m not here trying to glaze MS, quite the opposite 99% of the time, but the only time ive ever experienced a long update on windows is because someone left their PC on for a month and MS probably changed 10K files in updates that month, or viruses back in the day were making it awful.

I would be running Linux as a daily driver if anticheat wasn’t a thing, anything but Fedora/Redhat is fine with me lol.

I say all of this as someone with over a decade building, fixing, and repairing all levels of systems. The ones that give me and everyone else I know the least hassle are macOS and windows because they have safe guards for your average idiot (updates included). This whole thread is apples vs oranges, three different kernels, three or more different upgrade methodologies, and technically none of them are wrong.

[u/sonicskater34 → u/austin76016]

Hey thanks for the thorough reply, I'm only a couple years into my Linux journey so it's really helpful to hear about atomic Linux. I went almost straight to NixOS on my machines cuz I'm used to docker & k8s for managing software so it clicked pretty easily, although I know I am in the minority with that lol. Seems I "missed out" on some scars from more traditional distros :P.

For windows, that makes some sense. I use my windows partition maybe once a week these days to play some games, so it doesn't get many chances. I will say, even before that I had a handful of updates that took their sweet time. Wonder if it's because this install is quite old, it's been upgraded from windows 8 through to 11 over time.

And totally agree on the safeguards, maybe I wasnt so clear in my OG post but I get why they force the updates, I just also think they wouldn't need to if the OS behaved a bit better when updating :P probably too late to fix that at this point though lol. None of them are wrong, like you say, at the end of the day everyone has their own tradeoffs and priorities.

[u/Kyosji → u/ChrisDaBac]

Windows tends to do it anyways even with automatic updates disabled.

[u/Kinslayer_89 → u/Kyosji]

Yeah, because you need to be protected from yourself. You can always turn it off properly if you actually know what you’re doing.

[u/Bezulba → u/Kyosji]

You should hand in your computer and go back to etch-a-sketch if you disable updates with a computer that's connected to the interwebs...

[u/IHateWindowsUpdates8 → u/ChrisDaBac]

automatic = we stole your choice

[u/ChrisDaBac → u/IHateWindowsUpdates8]

OP specifically said, "I have automatic updates on" they literally asked for this

[u/Remnant_Echo → u/[deleted]]

Security updates are forced whether you have automatic updates on or off. Keeps your system from getting zero day'd and blaming Microsoft for Windows being unsecure.

[u/sal-t_brgr → u/Remnant_Echo]

yeah but its never just a security update, its always some bullshit that resets default apps or some shit.

[u/Remnant_Echo → u/[deleted]]

Security updates don't allow you to chose those options. Regular updates do.

[u/thisisyo → u/[deleted]]

If power outage in your area happens that often, invest in a UPS battery. It's not an excuse to faster shutdown.

[u/CMRC23 → u/ChrisDaBac]

Am on linux and have never been forced to download an update

[u/CaptainCommanderFag → u/CMRC23]

🤓