Consumer versions work this way for high priority updates.
I guess no one remembers the days when the entire industry (re: Slashdot) yelled at Microsoft that they needed to stop letting users run around with ancient exploitable installs of Windows.
So, Microsoft forces important updates.
Fancier versions of Windows let you turn off most updates. Sev0 exploits, RCEs, and the like, well, those updates still get pushed down unless you have a corporate install with policies disabling all updates.
There is a trade off, and for decades (!!) Microsoft let users decide, but eventually "1/4 of Windows users just got their machine 0wned" showed up in the press too many times.
Kind of like how every time there is a widely installed Android malware app, Google gets blamed. "Why don't they enforce their policies!" Then soon as they do enforce their policies "The Android app store should just be a dumb distribution mechanism!"
I get it, different people expressing those sentiments (I hope...), but balancing "keeping people from having their bank accounts cleared out" vs "user choice" is not the easiest of decisions. After many years, MS has gone full force on the auto-updating side of the debate.
That's fine I guess, but the problem is that there is no option to disable it. I've even read recently that they removed from settings the option to delay the updates or something along these lines, because it was "too confusing for users". Can't they just do something like what hardware manufacturers did, which is "if you screw with our product on your own too much, you lose the warranty and we are not liable for any damages"?
But back when Windows update had the option to disable updates, people who shouldn't (e.g. little Timmy setting up Gramp's machine) turned them off.
Then Microsoft got dragged through the mud, and grampa lost his retirement savings.
Back in the early 2000s, things were really bad. Going over to a non-geeks house, better than 50% chance to find malware, if they had broadband, good odds they were part of some sort of file drop for a warez group (or worse).
The issue now days comes that MS also pushes down feature updates, that is something that very valid objections to exist, especially with the dropping level of QA that exists throughout the industry today.
I guess no one remembers the days when the entire industry (re: Slashdot) yelled at Microsoft that they needed to stop letting users run around with ancient exploitable installs of Windows.
So, Microsoft forces important updates.
Fancier versions of Windows let you turn off most updates. Sev0 exploits, RCEs, and the like, well, those updates still get pushed down unless you have a corporate install with policies disabling all updates.
There is a trade off, and for decades (!!) Microsoft let users decide, but eventually "1/4 of Windows users just got their machine 0wned" showed up in the press too many times.
Kind of like how every time there is a widely installed Android malware app, Google gets blamed. "Why don't they enforce their policies!" Then soon as they do enforce their policies "The Android app store should just be a dumb distribution mechanism!"
I get it, different people expressing those sentiments (I hope...), but balancing "keeping people from having their bank accounts cleared out" vs "user choice" is not the easiest of decisions. After many years, MS has gone full force on the auto-updating side of the debate.