Do windows updates slow down the computer?

[trog100]

i just built a small form factor I5 kaby lake machine with a small ssd 64 gig boot drive.. first off an original win 10 install to get it going.. followed by a full win 10 upgrade install..

it boots into windows in 15 seconds.. a virgin win 10 install occupies about 20 gig of drive space.. quite a nippy little thing and it even plays games with its 1050 tI card..

so i dont think win 10 uprades slow things down.. they do however make some older machine dysfunctional which i think is intentional.. the win 10 support only goes back so far..

trog

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's more that manufacturers aren't providing updated drivers for really old hardware. Microsoft only provides generic drivers and the mechanism to update them.

 

[theFOoL]

Umm isn't these Fall-Updates pretty much Service Packs? but Bigger... and waste space by creating Install Rollback File/Folder to 3.5GB!!!

 

[Bill_Bright]

Very late to this one . . . but of course Windows Update slows your computer. It's not rocket science. Updates are patches . . . added code. The more code your computer is required to read and process, the longer it's going to take to do it. The more bloated the code, the more RAM it requires.

If you are going to come 4 months late, you really should come smart - especially as a new member trying to make a splash.

By far, most patches do NOT add code, they replace code - often by doing as little as changing a 1 to a 0.
Many patches do NOT involve code that is read in until that specific feature is needed - so bloat is not an issue there either.
And of course, many patches are designed specifically to improve performance and speed up our computers.

Microsoft has no desire whatsoever to degrade performance of our computers for they know the Microsoft haters will immediately pounce and start bashing Microsoft.

they do however make some older machine dysfunctional which i think is intentional..

That, of course, is not true either - the "intentional" part, that is.

It's more that manufacturers aren't providing updated drivers for really old hardware.

Exactly! It is the responsibility of hardware makers of those legacy systems to ensure compatible drivers are available - not Microsoft's.

And since there is no returns on their investments to create support for such older hardware, the only intentional part there is (maybe) the desire of the hardware makers to push users buying their new hardware.

Umm isn't these Fall-Updates pretty much Service Packs? but Bigger... and waste space by creating Install Rollback File

Yes. No. Kinda sorta. The Fall Creators Update is more than just a service pack (assuming you mean something like a "roll-up"). Creators Updates add new features, removes some old features, significantly improves other features - like Windows Defender for example. And it improves performance too.

 

[trog100]

It's more that manufacturers aren't providing updated drivers for really old hardware. Microsoft only provides generic drivers and the mechanism to update them.

seems a bit of a double edged sword.. blame the manufacturers or blame MS for enforced updates that bork older machines that worked perfectly before the unwanted update..

i have a couple of machines that work fine providing i dont let ms have its way with them.. my point is simple the machines work fine as they are i dont expect the makers to keep up with ms for ever as reagards compatibilities but do blame ms for not letting me say no thanks..

trog

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Windows Update only installs the latest WHQL drivers the manufacturer made available for the specific device ID. If an update breaks hardware then the manufacturer shouldn't have included that device ID in the update.

You're right that Microsoft provide an administrative option to opt-out of hardware updates. It's ridiculous that they don't.

 

[windwhirl]

In general, no. The only ways I know that Windows updates may slow down your computer are:
1-If you run old or uncommon hardware.
2-Get a lot of updates in short periods of time, constantly. It creates fragmentation on hard drives and wears down SSDs. This should only happen if you're in the Windows Insider Fast Ring, and it could take a while for you to notice. I only notice because I have an SSD, which is around 2 years old, and I get at least one update every two weeks sometimes, and other times I get three or four updates a week. And they all work as if they were full OS upgrades.
3-The system is wrongly configured (like wrong BIOS/UEFI settings, for example) and the update wasn't expecting that specific scenario.

 

[trog100]

Windows Update only installs the latest WHQL drivers the manufacturer made available for the specific device ID. If an update breaks hardware then the manufacturer shouldn't have included that device ID in the update.

You're right that Microsoft provide an administrative option to opt-out of hardware updates. It's ridiculous that they don't.

the manufactures dont include anything but that dont stop ms borking the machine with an enforced and often unwanted update.. i have a couple of lenovo machines an X61 tablet and an x200 laptop.. lenovo stopped support for these machine after windows 7.. one could say that windows 10 should never be put on such machines but it got put on mine and worked fine for first two iterations of windows 10.. after that each new unwanted by me iteration borks the machines..

okay i roll things back.. but that dosnt stop windows from ignoring the fact i have rolled things back.. it should take the hint after two ot three roll backs but it dosnt..

both machine are too nice to throw away.. the X61 is bit of a classic and to replace the X200 would cost me over a grand.. a fair bit more to be honest because the one i have has a 1 T ssd in it..

trog

 

[windwhirl]

the manufactures dont include anything but that dont stop ms borking the machine with an enforced and often unwanted update.. i have a couple of lenovo machines an X61 tablet and an x200 laptop.. lenovo stopped support for these machine after windows 7.. one could say that windows 10 should never be put on such machines but it got put on mine and worked fine for first two iterations of windows 10.. after that each new unwanted by me iteration borks the machines..

okay i roll things back.. but that dosnt stop windows from ignoring the fact i have rolled things back.. it should take the hint after two ot three roll backs but it dosnt..

Well, you're running Windows 10 on 10 year old machines... Don't expect everything to go smoothly. In fact, why do you run Windows 10? You need it for something that can't run on Windows 7?

Also, have you tried using the Current Branch for Business (or whatever it is called now)?

both machine are too nice to throw away.. the X61 is bit of a classic and to replace the X200 would cost me over a grand.. a fair bit more to be honest because the one i have has a 1 T ssd in it..

trog

I can agree with that. It feels like throwing money away.

 

[trog100]

Well, you're running Windows 10 on 10 year old machines... Don't expect everything to go smoothly. In fact, why do you run Windows 10? You need it for something that can't run on Windows 7?

Also, have you tried using the Current Branch for Business (or whatever it is called now)?

I can agree with that. It feels like throwing money away.

i didnt expect anything.. i tried it and it worked.. i quite like windows 10 but and its a big but.. i dont like the enforced what amounts to a full install unwanted by me update every six months.. we are only about a month away from the next one..

i dont think i am alone in this.. ms gets away with this for one reason alone.. it runs in what amounts to a monopoly situation.. people have no choice.. and please dont tell me there is linux.. he he

trog

 

[windwhirl]

i didnt expect anything.. i tried it and it worked.. i quite like windows 10 but and its a big but.. i dont like the enforced what amounts to a full install unwanted by me update every six months.. we are only about a month away from the next one..

i dont think i am alone in this.. ms gets away with this for one reason alone.. it runs in what amounts to a monopoly situation.. people have no choice.. and please dont tell me there is linux.. he he

trog

Ah. Honestly, I still find it surprising when people tell me they like Windows 10. I mean, I do like it (regardless of certain issues that still remain, like the file associations getting messed up from time to time), but I've seen so much hate for W10 (besides the privacy-related arguments)... sorry if I jumped to conclusions there.

And no, I wouldn't tell you to run Linux (maybe as a joke, not for real). I don't believe in forced OS changes. I don't like it when people want me to change my workflow and the way my system works, only because of "Microsoft is evil, open source software is better, blah blah blah". Heck, I once told my boss to not even dare change the way I had arranged my desktop icons, the one time he sat at my computer because of certain work that needed to be done there (he kind-of-complained to me that he couldn't get his head around the way I had rearranged the taskbar and some other things).

 

[trparky]

Hey, I like Windows 10 too; it works for me and it works well. Never had an issue.

 

[John Naylor]

its night and day between a hdd and nvme based drive...

Not to users .... we did blind tests with SSD, SSHD and HD on same machines ... setting the boot device before users arrived and explaining we had installed new utilities and to report any performance impacts... over 6 weeks and 5 users:

One user commented "seemed to boot slower today but can't be sure".

The thing is... if you stare at the screen and time something you may notice. ... you run a benchmark or copy / paste 700 GB you may notice ... but in the course of everyday usage, these things go unnoticed. We never expected anyone to notice the SSD versus SSD and it was a HD boot that garnered the "might have been slower" comment. Actual measured boot times:

SSD - 15.6 seconds
SSHD - 16.5 seconds
HD - 21.2 seconds

When a typical user arrives at a desk, they start the PC and then usually will use that time productively ... getting coffee, checkng in box for today's mail, listening to phone messages or reading those pink slips that the receptionist leaves on ya desk. At home after work / school ... start PC ... grab a snackie, take a bio .... start game ... take headphones off charger, turn them on, open discord, open game related web sites on 2nd screen. It's not a matter if it's capable of going faster, it just isn't on the "critical path". I'm not going to hire a concrete block contractor because he can do the job in one week instead of two when the house isn't going to finished and folks able to move in until 5 or 6 weeks after they each finish.

Or ... if i take the Porsche to work... I get their no earlier than if I take the SUV cause the car in front of me determines how fast I can go. We may like knowing it's faster.... but no legal secretary ever typed an extra legal brief and no gamer ever reached a further checkpoint because they had a fast SSD.

Outside of specialized workstation apps like rendering and video editing, there's really no measurable ROI from installing SSDs over say SSHDs. And it has nothing to do with the hardware, it has to do with the user. But here's the funny part. Yes ... knowing that to be true, every machine we built starts with a quality SSD and SSHD as the basic configuration (2 of both in my box). It may not change mine or the end user's life in anway but I still like knowing I built the best box I could within budget allowances. I may launch a game and won't be ready to play for 20 seconds, but I like seeing it load and ready to play even tho Im not ready yet.

As to the OPs question ... you'd have to be specific as to which KB and there is no single answer. Some may improve, some may slow down. Some make you lose functinaliyty until the patch is patched.... which is why recommend never installing patches "Day 1". Over time however, the more updates are installed, the slower the machine gets. You can get some of that back by doing a reinstall and, yes, even with the same updates. That's why you should record boot time day 1 of ya build and test periodically (i.e. quarterly) from there. I have never recorded a faster boot time ... ever ... as time went on. That's due not just to WUs but also every install uninstall leaves crap in registry and there's prolly another dozen reasons. On gaming boxes with no critical data a yearly reinstall can be a worthy "upgrade" ... did that on my son's boxes and they have continued to reinstall OS at least once or twice during PCs lifetime.

As for the recent Spectre / Meltdown pacthes, the fist batch were ineffective and had substantial impacts nd those pataches have been patched to an extent. The "ooh ooh sthis is major" articles use testing specifically tailored to create a big difference. Are people likely to see the % perfomance losses that these test imply will happen ?... nope. Is anybody out there complaining about the impact of stuff they actually do every day ... ? I haven't neen able to find any. This is mostly pundits seeking attention and web site click ad revenue. If there's a major impact on the everyday user, it's not showing up anywhere that I have seen The other thing I can't find ... athw predicted disasters for anyone who didn't install the patches.

 

[eidairaman1]

Windows Update only installs the latest WHQL drivers the manufacturer made available for the specific device ID. If an update breaks hardware then the manufacturer shouldn't have included that device ID in the update.

You're right that Microsoft provide an administrative option to opt-out of hardware updates. It's ridiculous that they don't.

Basically you might as well have the latest stable drivers on a Opticsl disk or usb drive and then updates thst dont bork the os, install updates, then dtivers and leave the system unplugged from ethernet/wifi then set parameters to prevent windows from updating automatically, save a list of settings you adjudted judt incase sn os update resets it to default etc.

W10 sounds more like a pita than it's worth to install...

 

[Bill_Bright]

seems a bit of a double edged sword.. blame the manufacturers or blame MS for enforced updates that bork older machines that worked perfectly before the unwanted update..

This implies that Microsoft drives the advancements in the hardware industry. Not so at all!

The hardware industry is constantly improving technologies on its own and it is the software industry, for the most part, that plays catch up. Look at 64-bit. 64-bit capable hardware was around for years before Microsoft finally totally embraced it with W7.

Implementation of hardware/data I/O technologies (USB, SATA, PCIe, M.2, etc.) were all driven by the hardware industry, not Microsoft.

Microsoft published the specs for W10 at least a full year before W10 was released. Plenty of time of manufacturers of legacy products to develop drivers for their legacy devices. If they didn't in the hopes consumers would buy new, that's not on Microsoft.

DON'T FORGET THE LESSONS OF THE PAST! One of the biggest reasons Windows XP became a security nightmare was because big corporations (Microsoft's largest user base) insisted XP support all their legacy hardware and software so those companies would not have to invest $BILLIONS (again!!!) retooling for the new OS like they did moving to DOS, then again with W95/98. And what happened? The bad guys moved in on all that legacy and unsecured hardware and custom proprietary software. But who got blamed for the actions of those bad guys? Microsoft.

So Microsoft puts security and support for future products ahead of support for legacy products - and rightfully so, IMO. Microsoft decided they would MUCH RATHER be blamed for failing to support less security legacy products than getting relentless blamed for security problems they did NOT create! And I personally applaud that decision - even though it forced me to dump my old favorite laser printer.

Again, if your hardware is not supported by the latest version of Windows, blame your hardware maker, not Microsoft.

W10 sounds more like a pita than it's worth to install...

If you are going to let the horror stories of a tiny few cloud your view of the big picture, then it would "sound" like a PITA. And for sure, "tiny" is what it is compared to the big picture.

It would not be possible that Windows 10 surpasses Windows 7 in global market share if W10 was the PITA the bashers and haters would like us to believe!

I've been installing operating systems on PCs since the early 80s with PC DOS, early 90s with MS-DOS, and Windows, OS/2, UNIX, Linux and more starting in the late 80s. And with current hardware, W10 is by far, the easiest OS to install.

If you are trying put W10 on hardware designed for the 9 year old W7, you might (and I emphasize might) have problems. We have upgraded dozens of W7 machines here without problems. And I cannot recall any W8 era computer having problems. The only systems we had problems with at a concerning rate were W7 systems that were previously upgraded from Vista or XP. That is, not merely legacy hardware, but antique stuff!

Are there exceptions? Of course! But we should not let the exceptions run/ruin our lives. That's how the haters and bashers and bad guys (including terrorists!) win.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Very late to this one . . . but of course Windows Update slows your computer. It's not rocket science. Updates are patches . . . added code. The more code your computer is required to read and process, the longer it's going to take to do it. The more bloated the code, the more RAM it requires.

Or let me put it another way: most people update or replace their computers because they are 'getting slow'. Computers don't get tired with age - what could possibly be slowing them down?

Windows Update and driver updates are the worst culprits. And the general advice to always update software and drivers is misguided.

There are a million different configurations of PCs in the world. Microsoft and other manufacturers cannot test the software on every spec. Over time problems are discovered running software on specific hardware. e.g. Windows 10 running Firefox from an SSD, using intel HD graphics on an AMD dual core processor will hang if Adobe is installed.

Microsoft or Intel with issue a patch to fix this. This patch will installed on every machine regardless of its configuration. So, even if you don't use Firefox, have an SSD or a dual-core processor your machine will run whatever patch code to accomodate the non-compliant configuration - thus slowing the system down.

New poster revives 4 month old thread that doesnt appear to be an issue anymore one way or the other. Seems legit.

 

[trog100]

its not windows 10 bill.. it can work fine as in my case.. until the next the next six monthly full update iteration.. then it gets borked.. each new update borked a new list of machines..

MS must be fully aware of this.. hence my comment that its deliberate.. you can say all the nice things you like but i aint gonna change my mind.. he he

let me put things simply.. ms has no right to deliberately bork perfectly good (but older) machine.. but that is exactly what they are doing.. and they are fully aware of it..

trog

 

[Vayra86]

seems a bit of a double edged sword.. blame the manufacturers or blame MS for enforced updates that bork older machines that worked perfectly before the unwanted update..

i have a couple of machines that work fine providing i dont let ms have its way with them.. my point is simple the machines work fine as they are i dont expect the makers to keep up with ms for ever as reagards compatibilities but do blame ms for not letting me say no thanks..

trog

Well its quite simple I think, if you hook up to the internet, you need to have an up-to-date OS. If you stay offline or in a tightly controlled environment with other security measures then yes, you can stay on some legacy piece of software. Otherwise? I think its inevitable and people need to realize that you have to stay with the times. And in all fairness, given MS's track record, they're doing a pretty decent job given the complexity of their software and the stubborn behavior of part of its userbase.

Is that always preferable? Perhaps not for everyone in every case, but the potential damage is far greater. But some people need to learn this the hard way; for example by getting hit with identity fraud or a piece of ransomware. People need to realize the internet and its security is a constant arms race and the more you depend on it, the more interesting you are as a target.

@Bill_Bright (below) absolutely, it never ceases to amaze me how people who 'know better' have a truckload of extremely crappy third-party applications that leave massive holes in the OS security, take tons of resources and only serve to do things the OS already could. Funny enough most of them haven't the slightest grasp of IT. It gets even funnier when I show them my rig, with a super clean desktop and taskbar that holds maybe 8 applications on startup, where they have 20-30 of them. When I ask what they use them for, they mostly don't even know.

 

[Bill_Bright]

let me put things simply.. ms has no right to deliberately bork perfectly good (but older) machine.. but that is exactly what they are doing.. and they are fully aware of it..

You are right, they don't have the right. But you clearly are wrong and it is just silly to say they are deliberately doing this. If that were even remotely true, shysters... err... lawyers, the EU, States Attorneys General, ZD-Net, The Regsister, and everyone else and their mothers would be all over it.

I am sorry you seem to have problems every 6 months. But since 100s of millions of W10 users don't, the problem is clearly on your end.

From our perspective here in my shop, BY FAR the systems that experience problems the most are (1) older systems designed for and originally had W7 installed, and (2) systems where the user, thinking they know better than the developers at Microsoft, dinked with the defaults! As a hands-on type person myself, this latter reason hits home. I had to swallow my pride and admit the developers at Microsoft know what they are doing. I cannot always say the same for the marketing department or the executives, but the people doing the work, the developers do when it comes to W10.

Frankly, considering every one of the 600+ million Windows 10 machines out there today became unique just minutes after the very first boot, I think Microsoft has done a remarkable job minimizing and mitigating compatibility issue.

let me put things simply..

So let me put this simply... your biases toward Microsoft has clouded your judgement if you really think Microsoft could pull off such disgraceful actions and not face significant legal and financial consequences.

 

[trog100]

i have four machines i would rather ms leave alone bill.. my X61 lenovo tablet old but looks like new and with roll backs still works like new.. my X200 lenovo laptop old but looks and works like new.. my 10 inch tablet not old but it only has 32 has of system memory.. not enough for windows to meddle with and a small 8 inch tablet again it only has 32 gig of system memory not enough for windows to meddle with doing its unwanted new iterations..

i aint wrong here dudes.. quite why so many of you seem to think i am baffles me somewhat.. he he

trog

 

[Bill_Bright]

i have four machines i would rather ms leave alone bill..

That's just fine. When it comes to your personal machines, I don't care. What I do care about is baseless accusations against innocent parties, whether that be Microsoft, Intel, Samsung, AMD, Realtek or whoever. Your accusations of Microsoft, or any company of "deliberately" borking machines - which would be a seriously criminal act - is just wrong especially in the case of Microsoft, one of the most continuously scrutinized companies in the world. There is no basis in fact for those accusations whatsoever.

The uproar and legal actions would be as great, if not greater than what we are seeing now with Apple Facing More Than 60 Lawsuits for Slowing Down Older iPhones. And note those are Apple phones Apple messed with. You are accusing Microsoft of borking computers (or motherboards) made by other companies. That's just absurd.

i aint wrong here dudes.. quite why so many of you seem to think i am baffles me somewhat.. he he

It should tell you something if "so many" feel the opposite you do. The "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" claim is not supported by the facts.

The common denominator with your 4 systems is you. You likely dinked them to death. If what you said was true, TPU and other tech support forums would be inundated and overwhelmed with complaints. And that is just not happening in any significant numbers.

FTR, I have 6 systems here, including an 8 year old Toshiba notebook which originally came with W7, and they all are working just fine with fully updated W10. At worse, the only problem with any Windows Update they had was corrected with a simple reboot. None were borked.

 

[EarthDog]

Not to users .... we did blind tests with SSD, SSHD and HD on same machines ...

@John Naylor - That's funny...I think your users are completely unconscious if they are unable to notice boot times well over 33% faster/6+ seconds.

I also mentioned HDD to NVMe based drive as well not SSD/SSHD to NVMe based drives. They aren't much faster than SATA based SSDs in boot, barely noticeable in some cases even, but, faster is faster.

I am also not talking about Dick, Jane, and Tom and the viability of this in the enterprise/office either but simply responding to the assertion an NVMe based drive boots "barely" faster than a HDD. Nothing else, not user feel... not butt dynos... just faster booting. And an NVMe drive is far FAR better than "barely" - my sole talking point. Though, as always your dissertations are, if anything, informative.
https://www.techspot.com/news/67222-storage-real-world-performance-nvme-vs-sata-vs-hdd.html

 

[R-T-B]

i aint wrong here dudes.. quite why so many of you seem to think i am baffles me somewhat.. he he

There's a difference between not thinking your wrong, and not being wrong.

 

[windwhirl]

i have four machines i would rather ms leave alone bill.. my X61 lenovo tablet old but looks like new and with roll backs still works like new.. my X200 lenovo laptop old but looks and works like new.. my 10 inch tablet not old but it only has 32 has of system memory.. not enough for windows to meddle with and a small 8 inch tablet again it only has 32 gig of system memory not enough for windows to meddle with doing its unwanted new iterations..

i aint wrong here dudes.. quite why so many of you seem to think i am baffles me somewhat.. he he

trog

I don't think that Microsoft (for all the things they may have done or not over the years) deliberately screws up the users' computers. What most likely has happened here is that the new OS versions have different code and internal behavior, that is not fully compatible with your specific machines and settings. This is to be expected, as Microsoft can't test all the possible scenarios on every single computer ever sold. Hell, more than once I had updates failing to install and rolling back, even though I don't really have an "old" computer nor weird settings. And I have seen OS updates screwing up things on Microsoft's own Surface devices, which were specifically designed to be fully compatible with Windows 10 and probably receive far more attention from the developers than any other device on the market.

 

[trog100]

I don't think that Microsoft (for all the things they may have done or not over the years) deliberately screws up the users' computers. What most likely has happened here is that the new OS versions have different code and internal behavior, that is not fully compatible with your specific machines and settings. This is to be expected, as Microsoft can't test all the possible scenarios on every single computer ever sold. Hell, more than once I had updates failing to install and rolling back, even though I don't really have an "old" computer nor weird settings. And I have seen OS updates screwing up things on Microsoft's own Surface devices, which were specifically designed to be fully compatible with Windows 10 and probably receive far more attention from the developers than any other device on the market.

taking what you say as correct.. ms then knows that xxxx number of machines for one reason or another will be borked by its next enforced full fall or spring update.. if not the next one the one after that..

you know.. so for sure ms knows.. so where is the opt out option.. without the all important opt out option ms is deliberately borking xxx numbers of machines every new iteration..

ms say they dont just sell software they sell a service.. and that service is subject to constant "improvement" which in truth means ms has the right to meddle with a users machine whenever it wants to.. this is wrong.. ms should go back to simply selling software like they used to do..

in simple terms ms are abusing their monopoly position.. and it seems they are too powerful for government or users to do anything about it..

the days of Skynet get ever closer.. he he

trog

ps.. dont get me wrong here i dont dislike windows software.. its the insidious nature of its "service" i aint over keen on.. and this thread is making me think about just how insidious it could get.. he he