Jeff said:
Yes, but just for me to understand, why does Windows "need" to
reboot at all after certain updates. I am just curious. I
understand that certain files cannot be overwritten when in use,
but I believe I read (I am not an expert) that some other operating
systems - Linux comes to mind, but I could be wrong - do not need
to reboot for as many things as Windows does.
Why the difference (if it exists)?
First off, this is not a Linux vs. Windows argument thread.
I will make the comments that point back toward the heart of this thread -
which I feel is,
"Why did you choose automatic updates if that is not what you wanted?"
and/or
"What happens if you do not follow common sense you save your work more
often?"
and/or
"Common sense and your computer."
The fact is the OP stated they were using their computer - had work they
could not just leave alone to reboot. Chose to set it for Automatic updates
anyway - knowing that sometimes Windows reboots (requires a reboot) after a
patch. Kept getting the question about the reboot and kept telling it "not
now". After getting that question several times, decided that the message
was okay and that maybe they didn't need to work on this for a few minutes
and walked away (neglecting to save said work *if* they were not talking
about some continuously running process and not something they could
pause/save progress/start again in case something happened (power outage,
reboot, kids, whatever)) - and having obviously not saved it very much while
sitting in front of the computer. It rebooted. They blame the patch. It
*may* have been the patch - but they were not there and did not state they
looked at the event log to see if it said the system was being rebooted
because of the patches.
In any case - if they walked away and the power was switched off, they
contracted a virus/trojan/etc that reboots the machines as part of its
arsenal because of other poor maintenance or the patch made the machine
reboot isn't the key problem here - it's knowing ones own situation and not
planning for it and then blaming the plan that had been put in place (by the
person doing the blaming) for their misfortune.
Don't let the linux thing fool you too much - while it doesn't have to
*reboot* often, it becomes "as useless" during certain operations where
windows would just have you reboot. Essentially you are stopping certain
modular components of linux as opposed to the entire OS.. If that modular
component is critical enough - you might as well be (or may be) rebooting.
Luckily - the base OS is so limited that unless you are rebuilding the
kernel, you do not lose "total functionality".
As far as how much Windows needs to reboot.. That's a relative thing as
well. If you are the one controlling when to install patches (and if to
install patches) - then you also control the only self-inflicted occasions
for rebooting Windows systems. If you make yourself the complete slave to
automation because you are paranoid or don't want the responsibility you
should take with any OS - then you made your choice.
If you think Linux would be better for your needs, use it.
I do for certain things.