From: ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com   
      
   On 2026-01-02, Paul  wrote:   
   > On Fri, 1/2/2026 11:19 AM, RonB wrote:   
   >> On 2026-01-02, Alan K.  wrote:   
   >>> On 1/1/26 11:55 PM, Axel wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> one thing in particular that has become obvious to me about LM v Winx,   
   >>>> is that I can just turn it on and use it! With windose there was always   
   >>>> something that needed doing.. a virus scan, defrag, update apps, clean   
   >>>> registry, software updates, driver updates, run maintenance app, etc.,   
   >>>> It seemed I almost spent as much time trying to keep Winx running well,   
   >>>> as I did using it. With LM it's just one click of the 'shield' for   
   >>>> everything.   
   >>>>   
   >>> A lot of what you say, IMHO, might just be you.   
   >>> Virus scan?  Defrag?  Registry clean (surely not)?  Software/driver   
   updates?  What   
   >>> maintenance apps?   
   >>> None of those I do 'always'.   Yes I do update apps, but I use Patch my PC   
   home updater   
   >>> and in one click it tells me what, if any, need to be updated, and will do   
   that for me.   
   >>>   
   >>> So as much as I agree with you and I wouldn't leave my Linux and don't do   
   much in Windows   
   >>> because I'm just not comfortable any longer, I wouldn't say it's as bad as   
   you say.   
   >>   
   >> All I was doing with Windows for about three years was updating it every two   
   >> to three months. And even that irritated me. Unlike Linux Mint where you can   
   >> watch the update in "real time,"the Windows update procedure is opaque. You   
   >> never know what the hell it's doing at any give time. It just seems to sit   
   >> there for 40 minutes to an hour. I can install and completely update Linux   
   >> Mint in about half the time an "every other month" update takes in Windows.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Technically, a lot of what Windows does, is automated.   
   >   
   > But what it specializes in, is aggravation.   
   >   
   > Let's take a Patch Tuesday. It's automated, but it might want a reboot at   
   > some point. A lot of experienced users (you or I), may want to be   
   > "done with these updates so I can stop caring about this background   
   activity".   
   >   
   > There is a "feature", "Hours of Use" or so, that might say "we notice   
   > you use your machine from 7 to 23". This implies, that (maybe, who knows) the   
   > updates would proceed with authority, during the hours that the user is not   
   > present.   
   >   
   > Instead, of a patch set, one file (the Cumulative Security Update for the   
   month),   
   > will process, the package management will have finished scanning the tree and   
   > collecting packages needing updates, and then it just... stops. It won't   
   install.   
   > Well, Microsoft has some silly idea about "CO2" and how an update could   
   > produce more CO2 if the generation facility ran on diesel generators at   
   > night, and solar panels in the daytime. If (strawman) they were to delay   
   > this single update, until the sun comes up, then while the update is   
   happening,   
   > less CO2 is being generated.   
   >   
   > The idea is just so much delusional bunk. They don't really know the   
   condition   
   > of the electrical grid where I am, not in any detail. It is purest   
   crap-thinking   
   > to delay the installation because... the damn computer is still running and   
   > making all of that CO2 while we wait for this patch to install.   
   >   
   > Instead, you should proceed with all haste, to finish a compute activity as   
   soon   
   > as it arrives. Once you've committed to *downloading* a fucking patch, your   
   > committed to *installing* the thing.   
   >   
   > And this represents the tortured logic that goes through some committee-think   
   > in some departments at Microsoft. Yes, at some level, we hates the CO2. But   
   > on the other hand, when it comes to implementation, we "select the absolute   
   > stupidest thing we can think of" for the implementation.   
   >   
   > *******   
   >   
   > To make a stalled patch proceed, try pulling the network cable, and putting   
   it   
   > back in again. Sometimes, little stimuli, can cause the patch to wake up and   
   > go ahead. Pretending you are going to shut down, doesn't always work, and   
   > one side effect of shutting down in the past, is it would dump all the goods   
   > downloaded, and start the download all over again (even though a quick hash   
   check   
   > would verify there was nothing whatsoever wrong with the goods). Other times,   
   > it is semi-successful at noting it already had a lot of the needed content   
   > onboard.   
   >   
   > It's just one thing after another like this.   
   >   
   > Notice then that:   
   >   
   > 1) It's automated.   
   > 2) The intern wrote the automation.   
   > 3) Profit.   
   >   
   >    Paul   
      
   It's something that I, fortunately don't have to worry about any more.   
   (Except when something screws up on my wife's computer.)   
      
   Didn't realize they were using CO2 in their "reasonning." Thanks for the   
   information.   
      
   --   
   Just because you play "dress up" doesn't   
   mean I have to play "make believe."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)