403
Almost nine gigabytes in size: Windows update 24H2 creates an undeletable cache file
(www.digitec.ch)
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
403 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
58635 readers
3562 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the third update in like six months that is horribly broken. There was a windows 10 update that wouldn’t install because the recovery partition that Microsoft’s installer created was too small. The prior win 11 update just won’t install for lots of people and there’s no real rhyme or reason. Now this crap.
They just don’t give a shit anymore. Microsoft had a great run folks, time to move on.
That's not even counting the ones that make your user experience worse on purpose
Remember the dozens of times a Windows 10 update could potentially wipe your personal data?
Your files are EXACTLY WHERE YOU LEFT THEM
Part of my job is keeping all of the endpoints my work manages up to date with patch compliance. I've had to create exceptions for the past two windows 11 updates because they won't run on most machines for no reason. It's been a pain in the ass. I can't just add the machines to the exception list without doing basic troubleshooting because "procedure" and I've spent so much time doing absolutely unnecessary shit.
They also released an update that broke dual boot Linux installations. Still feeling that one
Oh right! Forgot about that one! FOUR major screw ups.
i think that one is not a screw up...
I have avoided Win 11 by disabling TPM in BIOS. Because I expect MS would eventually figure out some way to install 11 otherwise.
I’m honestly waiting for a crowdstrike level BSOD from one of their updates at some point. At that level, corporations would recover in the same way they did from crowdstrike, but consumers who didn’t understand how to roll back, or restore from backup, restore windows, etc would be livid and hopefully it would create some awareness on better understanding and control of the products you buy and use
Microsoft has largely mitigated this concern by pushing all their fresh updates to the consumers for testing before pushing them to their sensitive business customers.
I'd say they started the misstepping after they "fixed" Vista with windows 7. After that, they tried to hard instead of slow rolling. Windows 10 was good but 11 is just....windows 8 again.
Windows ME was the original mistake edition. It was terrible.
Lol look who forgot about Win 98, the version so bad they made an SE version with a free upgrade.
MS has been alternating good releases and bad releases for most of my life.
Well yes. But in more recent times for the examples I was giving
The 17th anniversary of vistas release is coming up in January of next year.
Wonder what's next for Microsoft to fuck up. I was the equivalent of Linux minimal but for windows 11.... I guess I want server core.
Windows has always had broken versions. The old advice was to always skip every other version.
NT, Millennium, Vista, 8... 10... 11... More misses than hits really. And the bad updates are turning hits into misses.
That list mixes NT kernel OS's with Win95 OS's to support a bad hypothesis.
The NT line is:
NT 3.1, NT 3.51, NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista, 7,8, 10.
NT 4, 2000, and XP were all great. Vista was good on good hardware. 7 was good. 8 was bad, 10 good, 11 bad.
If you take the 95 path it's 95 good, 98 good, Me bad.
The only pattern is 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad.
Anyone who says NT was ever bad is out of their mind. That was the thing that saved Windows since 95’s kernel wasn’t modern. Anything that crashed took the entire system down. Yeah, that was fun times kiddos.
Well 11 is NT as was 8. Although it's only problem was the UI.
Windows 98 sucked. Windows 98SE was... well I won't say good, but it was ok.
That's a hell of a caveat for an OS meant to be run on consumer hardware. You might get away with that kind of caveat if MS only offered in on good hardware and people went and put it on non-recommended hardware on their own accord. But that's not the case, Vista sucked when running on hardware that met MS's specs, so it sucked.
So the real pattern is Win 3.0 sucked, 3.1 ok, 95 sucked, 95B ok, 98 sucked, 98SE ok. Windows Me? OMG let's just move everyone over to NT and never talk about this again!
2000 was good. XP wasn't great but improved after awhile. Vista sucked. Windows 7 was peak windows, it was downhill from here. 8 sucked, 10 was ok, and 11 is shaping up to be complete dogshit.
So it's not precisely every other release is bad, but close enough to see a pattern. I guess you could say 2000-> XP doesn't follow the pattern, but Me->XP does. And since 2000 and previous NT versions were meant for servers, not home PCs, while XP was meant for home PCs. It would make more sense to look at the pattern of releases for PC releases rather than mixing in server releases.
When MS has an OS that works decently they tend to try to cram in a bunch of shit into the next release which causes problems. Then they either remove the shit (or at least make it work better) for the release after that so they have something that works ok again. Then it's back to adding a bunch of shit into the next one.
Win95 did not suck. 3.1 was trash compared to 95. 95 has a real desktop UI, tcpip built in and a 32 bit preemptive kernel.
98 was great. It wasn't any more buggy than 95.
You ignored NT 4.
I'm speaking from experience in using theses OSes, not from a list of features they had. I didn't use NT 4 personally (and that's way outside the scope of personal computer OSes), so I didn't talk about it.
People used 3.1 and 3.1.1 for years even though it was running on top of MSDOS but show me someone who used 3.0? Or 1.x, 2.x? Unheard of. Version 3 started off with some problems that needed a more or less immediate large update.
Yea I still follow that advice.