My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
just cannot risk losing data.
I have searched for this issue and found some astonishing answers.
Anything from MSFT says turn off automatically restart after system
failure, makes it look as if they are being deliberately obscure. Many
others say it's impossible, some suggest registry or policy tweaks.
Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is
Mike Linn when you need him?).
If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.
My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
just cannot risk losing data.
If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.
Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is
Mike Linn when you need him?).
My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
just cannot risk losing data.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Let me state the bleedin' obvious ... save your work :-)
I have learned that in the last 42 years since my Vic 20. The work was
saved but I have no idea what was open between Visual Studio, Word,
Ultraedit etc. I am a grown up and I paid for Win 10 Pro so I must be
able to decide when the computer re-boots.
I can't remember what Win10 offers, but here both Win11 Home and Pro
allow pausing updates for 1 to 5 weeks ...
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Let me state the bleedin' obvious ... save your work :-)
I have learned that in the last 42 years since my Vic 20. The work was >>saved but I have no idea what was open between Visual Studio, Word, >>Ultraedit etc. I am a grown up and I paid for Win 10 Pro so I must be
able to decide when the computer re-boots.
I can't remember what Win10 offers, but here both Win11 Home and Pro
allow pausing updates for 1 to 5 weeks ...
Jeff Gaines wrote:
My Win 10 PC updated itself and restarted itself last night. I had
goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks and
just cannot risk losing data.
Let me state the bleedin' obvious ... save your work :-)
On 11/01/2024 11:33, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:I can't remember what Win10 offers, but here both Win11 Home and Pro >>allow pausing updates for 1 to 5 weeks ...
Let me state the bleedin' obvious ... save your work :-)
I have learned that in the last 42 years since my Vic 20. The work
was saved but I have no idea what was open between Visual Studio,
Word, Ultraedit etc. I am a grown up and I paid for Win 10 Pro so I
must be able to decide when the computer re-boots.
10Pro indefinitely. My box hasn't updated for 2-3 years or more. Suits
me. The info is out there somewhere.
He has also pointed me to a different MSFT forum so I'll give that a go.
Just a word of warning.....
10Pro indefinitely. My box hasn't updated for 2-3 years or more. Suits
me. The info is out there somewhere.
My W10 - PC is pretty ancient (it started life on W7), and Windows
'updates' can really screw things up.
On 11/01/2024 in message <xn0ogp7dy1m2u1s003@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
He has also pointed me to a different MSFT forum so I'll give that a go.
And my question has been deleted for breaching he rules, no idea what one. >I've tried posting it again and asking for an explanation.
Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy18rif3004@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and
much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long
you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of points:
1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time
to check what version of Win 10 he is running?
2) Has anybody tried un-installing Win 10 updates with any success? I
know it's theoretically possible but wonder if it is practical. I could
then roll back to the update before the limit was put on deferring updates.
Many thanks
On 13/01/2024 12:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy18rif3004@news.individual.net> Jeff >>Gaines wrote:
Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure >>>somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and
much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long
you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of >>points:
1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time to >>check what version of Win 10 he is running?
2) Has anybody tried un-installing Win 10 updates with any success? I
know it's theoretically possible but wonder if it is practical. I could >>then roll back to the update before the limit was put on deferring
updates.
Many thanks
What is terrifying you about this? You want your system to act reliably,
as you have a court case in 3 weeks. Fair enough, then, install the
security updates.
Okay, you don't want overnight updates. So, pause updates for a few days, >then install them when it's convenient.
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to >>have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody >>re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
Stability.
It is much easier to deliver and test software in a standard environment. >Rolling out software to end users was always a nightmare because a few
would have very special unexpected conditions that broke the software.
My limited experience of Windows recovery has been good. Windows recovery >allows you to restore the OS to a state prior to a recent update.
So on balance, you are probably better to go with the flow, and only pause >Windows Update at very critical times.
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum
because so much of it is wrong.
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes usWhat you NEED to accept is that Windows is flaky enough to need regular
to have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness
sake?
I used to leave my PC running overnight (and it got automagically backed
up to a NAS in the wee small hours) on the grounds that the cost of the electricity was small and not power-cycling the hardware probably made
it last longer. Even so I closed every application when I stopped work (partly so that all the data would be in a fit state to be backed up_.
Since then the cost of power has gone up, we're all being told to save
the planet, and I've come to realize that modern PCs last longer than
even I want to run them for. I power down in the evening and up again in
the morning. It really doesn't take that long.
I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous
one used about 65W at idle. At current domestic electricity rates (say 30p/kWh) turning the box off for 8 hours overnight saves just under £60
a year. I used to say that in winter that didn't signify as the energy
was heating the room anyway, but now I have more efficient heating from
a heat pump about £40 of that £60 really is waste even in winter when
the heating's on ... and all of it in summer.
On 14 Jan 2024 at 11:42:51 GMT, Daniel James wrote:
I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previousI would think/hope that in sleep mode your PC uses far less than that
one used about 65W at idle.
- 5W maybe?
On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum because >>so much of it is wrong.
MS actually have very little to do with the running of 'their' forums --
it all costs money, you see -- and are seemingly happy to have Joe Public
and his dog spread half-understood half-truths instead.
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes usWhat you NEED to accept is that Windows is flaky enough to need regular >updates for stability and security, and is badly-enough designed that it >can't update some parts of itself without a reboot. With those two things
to have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody >>re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness
sake?
in mind it's clear that you either have to let Windows reboot now and
again, or have to expect Windows to say "I need to be rebooted now to
install the updates".
I'm sure it used to do the latter, and I suppose people complained about
it if they've switched to doing the former.
I used to leave my PC running overnight (and it got automagically backed
up to a NAS in the wee small hours) on the grounds that the cost of the >electricity was small and not power-cycling the hardware probably made it >last longer. Even so I closed every application when I stopped work
(partly so that all the data would be in a fit state to be backed up_.
Since then the cost of power has gone up, we're all being told to save the >planet, and I've come to realize that modern PCs last longer than even I
want to run them for. I power down in the evening and up again in the >morning. It really doesn't take that long.
I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previous one >used about 65W at idle. At current domestic electricity rates (say
30p/kWh) turning the box off for 8 hours overnight saves just under £60 a >year. I used to say that in winter that didn't signify as the energy was >heating the room anyway, but now I have more efficient heating from a heat >pump about £40 of that £60 really is waste even in winter when the >heating's on ... and all of it in summer.
I no longer run the NAS overnight, either, so I'm saving even more.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> writes:
On 14 Jan 2024 at 11:42:51 GMT, Daniel James wrote:
I haven't put the current box on a power meter plug, but the previousI would think/hope that in sleep mode your PC uses far less than that
one used about 65W at idle.
- 5W maybe?
Nobody mentioned sleep mode, until you, only idle - which I take to mean sitting at the desktop or login screen but not actively doing
anything.
But if you're putting it to sleep, why not save that extra 5W
and shut it down completely anyway?
On 13/01/2024 in message <unu1lj$3ufmu$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 13/01/2024 12:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy18rif3004@news.individual.net> Jeff >>Gaines wrote:
Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure >>>somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and >>much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long >>you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of >>points:
1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time to >>check what version of Win 10 he is running?
2) Has anybody tried un-installing Win 10 updates with any success? I >>know it's theoretically possible but wonder if it is practical. I could >>then roll back to the update before the limit was put on deferring >>updates.
Many thanks
What is terrifying you about this? You want your system to act reliably,
as you have a court case in 3 weeks. Fair enough, then, install the >security updates.
Okay, you don't want overnight updates. So, pause updates for a few days, >then install them when it's convenient.
The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum because
so much of it is wrong.
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
On 14/01/2024 in message <uo0ha8$dut2$1@dont-email.me> Daniel James wrote:
What you NEED to accept is that Windows is flaky enough to need regular
updates for stability and security, and is badly-enough designed that it
can't update some parts of itself without a reboot. With those two things
in mind it's clear that you either have to let Windows reboot now and
again, or have to expect Windows to say "I need to be rebooted now to
install the updates".
I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, although Windows has been pretty stable since Win 7. Programs I wrote for Win 98 and that make extensive
use of the Windows API still work perfectly well on Windows 10 so very
little has changed under the bonnet. It's mainly cosmetic with as much as possible now being obscured or hidden.
I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, although Windows has been pretty >>stable since Win 7. Programs I wrote for Win 98 and that make extensive
use of the Windows API still work perfectly well on Windows 10 so very >>little has changed under the bonnet. It's mainly cosmetic with as much as >>possible now being obscured or hidden.
It's actually the opposite. The cosmetics have changed a little. Under
the hood it's vastly different. All those old win32 APIs are running
in legacy sandboxes, carefully kept away from being able to damage the
actual system running the hardware. Win64 doesn't have a huge
architectural commonality with Win32 under the hood, and the backwards >compatibility is a huge strain on Microsoft's developer resources.
I've never understood why someone would keep a PC at 'idle' when it's not doing anything. Why not 'sleep', if that mode's reliable (wakes up for network
polls for example)?
I remember when Windows sleep was hideoously unreliable, with crashes on wake and such like. Nowadays it seems quite stable - Mac-like even 🙂
But if you're putting it to sleep, why not save that extra 5W
and shut it down completely anyway?
Save time booting, in the main. And possibly save some stress on certain components?
On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy18rif3004@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure
somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and
much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long
you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of points:
1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time
to check what version of Win 10 he is running?
On 13/01/2024 12:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2024 in message <xn0ogqhmy18rif3004@news.individual.net> Jeff >>Gaines wrote:
Incidentally I can only defer updates for up to 35 days, I am sure >>>somebody said they had deferred them for a much longer period?
The advice from the supposed official Windows forum is terrifying and
much of it is wrong. Apparently one update has set a limit on how long
you can defer Windows updates although I don't know which one. Couple of >>points:
1) Mike Scott said he hadn't updated for some years - doe he have time to >>check what version of Win 10 he is running?
W10 Pro, but the exact version I don't know. If the exact version would be >useful, I'll try to check (if I can find it in the mess that passes for a >menu system).
There was a patch for Pro registry which I applied to disable automatic >updates. I've lost the details though.... :-(
I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a
machine holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised
(and indignant) when the standard updating process kicks in. It is
indeed standard - it's been doing this for years on end, and little
has changed about it. You have some control - I choose to install
updates immediately (but not preview ones) so that the system chucks
up a warning that it'll reboot imminently, and I tell it not to until
I'm ready, which is usually within an hour. Generally I don't leave
loads of applications with unsaved data, or browser tabs which I
haven't bookmarked, for any great time. So if I'm called away, and
then there's a power cut, I haven't lost anything much.
The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum
because so much of it is wrong.
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to
have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody
re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
The registry hacks are quite interesting
On 14/01/2024 17:39, RJH wrote:
I've never understood why someone would keep a PC at 'idle' when it's not doing anything. Why not 'sleep', if that mode's reliable (wakes up for network
polls for example)?
I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when it's perfectly possible to turn it off ... well, to standby, which isn't
actually off ... it's still got 5V standby keeping enough of the
motherboard alive for Wake-on-LAN.
On 13/01/2024 14:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The advice is terrifying from a supposedly MSFT run Windows forum because >>so much of it is wrong.It caters for the lowest common denominator - lots of people just want
It's people who just accept things, like you seem to, that causes us to >>have crap operating systems. Why on earth should I accept somebody >>re-booting mu computer remotely when they they want to for goodness sake?
their systems kept up to date. If that requires a reboot, so be it.
There's an option: "Set active hours to let us know when you typically
use this device. We won't automatically restart your device during this >time."
What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that it does >what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during the hours you
have said it should?
On 15/01/2024 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The registry hacks are quite interesting
How does that square with your OP "I have a court case in 3 weeks and just >cannot risk losing data. "?
I do think that PCs have been around so long now that many people have forgotten what the "P" stands for. It's my PERSONAL computer and it
needs to work in a way that suits me not anybody else.
[snip]I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when
it's perfectly possible to turn it off
Because sleep preserves what you were doing on the desktop, whereas
turning it off comes back with a clean desktop.
Even the MacOS way of remembering what was open only half works - you
lose state in web pages which don't always come back (eg pages that
you were served by submitting a form don't reload properly) ...
There's an option:Â "Set active hours to let us know when you
typically use this device. We won't automatically restart your device
during this time."
What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that it
does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during the
hours you have said it should?
I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are
24/7/365 and that is not available.
On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There's an option:Â "Set active hours to let us know when you typically >>>use this device. We won't automatically restart your device during this >>>time."
What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that it >>>does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during the hours >>>you have said it should?
I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are
24/7/365 and that is not available.
You can set active hours for an 18 hour window, and it won't reboot during >those hours.
I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for practical
help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important court trial.
I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a machine >holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised (and >indignant)
when the standard updating process kicks in. It is indeed standard - it's >been
doing this for years on end, and little has changed about it.
On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I do think that PCs have been around so long now that many people have >>forgotten what the "P" stands for. It's my PERSONAL computer and it needs >>to work in a way that suits me not anybody else.
Your "PC" is just a node on the internet that we all use. If it becomes >infected with malware because you haven't updated it it can affect all of
us. It is no longer a strictly "Personal" device.
You have some responsibility to keep it safe for the rest of us, which you >can help to do by ensuring that it is updated in a timely fashion; whether >you do this by setting a delay on automatic updates and updating manually
at a time of your own choosing, or by letting the automated system work as
it pleases.
If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even possible.
On 10/01/2024 in message <xn0ognn2wj9e4a000@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even
possible.
Just to close this off I have re-installed Win 8.1 and transferred and activated all the apps that needed it so I have what I need, even found
an old copy of Brave which I think I will stick with as somehow it
manages to hide its ad-blocker which extensions don't seem able to.
Happy and safe computing to all, I will do my best to meet my social responsibilities to those who think I should :-)
On 15/01/2024 13:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3af4$u9ng$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There's an option: "Set active hours to let us know when you typically >>>>>use this device. We won't automatically restart your device during this >>>>>time."
What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that it >>>>>does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during the >>>>>hours you have said it should?
I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are >>>>24/7/365 and that is not available.
You can set active hours for an 18 hour window, and it won't reboot >>>during those hours.
I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for practical >>>help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important court trial.
I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
"I had goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks
and just cannot risk losing data. "
On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3af4$u9ng$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There's an option:Â "Set active hours to let us know when you
typically use this device. We won't automatically restart your
device during this time."
What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised that
it does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots during
the hours you have said it should?
I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are
24/7/365 and that is not available.
You can set active hours for an 18 hour window, and it won't reboot
during those hours.
I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for
practical help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important
court trial.
I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3q7b$10rva$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/01/2024 13:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3af4$u9ng$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/01/2024 11:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There's an option:Â "Set active hours to let us know when you
typically use this device. We won't automatically restart your
device during this time."
What hours do you have this set to, and why are you surprised
that it does what it says on the tin, and automatically reboots
during the hours you have said it should?
I haven't set it because the active hours of all my computers are
24/7/365 and that is not available.
You can set active hours for an 18 hour window, and it won't reboot
during those hours.
I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for
practical help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an
important court trial.
I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
"I had goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3
weeks and just cannot risk losing data. "
Sorry, I didn't realise you only read the first line of posts! Try
reading it all?
"Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (where is >Mike Linn when you need him?).I apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for practical >>>>>help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an important court >>>>>trial.
I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
"I had goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3 weeks >>>and just cannot risk losing data. "
Sorry, I didn't realise you only read the first line of posts! Try
reading it all?
If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even
possible. "
You've had lots of excellent suggestions that didn't involve turning off >updates. You have chosen a truly awful option, ie installing win 8.1,
which is no longer supported. So, there are no updates, and you didn't
need to turn them off.
"Windows 8.1 support ended on January 10, 2023
Save time booting, in the main. And possibly save some stress on certain
components?
If your time is *that* precious why not pay someone to turn the PC on
before you need it :-)
I don't think the thermal stress on components differs a lot between
sleep and standby.
It may help if you actually read my OP before posting patronising >
bollocks.
On 15/01/2024 in message <uo3t2d$119rm$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
"Does anybody here have any suggestions, even a third party app (whereI apologise, because I originally thought you were looking for
practical help to avoid your PC becoming unstable before an
important court trial.
I didn't say that at all if you look at the OP.
"I had goodness knows how many files open, I have a court case in 3
weeks and just cannot risk losing data. "
Sorry, I didn't realise you only read the first line of posts! Try
reading it all?
is Mike Linn when you need him?).
If not I will have ti turn off updates altogether, if that's even
possible. "
You've had lots of excellent suggestions that didn't involve turning
off updates. You have chosen a truly awful option, ie installing win
8.1, which is no longer supported. So, there are no updates, and you
didn't need to turn them off.
I haven't had a single suggestion that fits in with the way I work, not through lack of effort but because that's how Win 10 works now.
"Windows 8.1 support ended on January 10, 2023
Then hopefully intrusive update won't be a problem.
"Windows 8.1 support ended on January 10, 2023
Then hopefully intrusive update won't be a problem.
But, you are wide open to malware, so it clearly wasn't your intention to >make your system as stable as possible before the court case. You'd have
been far better off instal;ling linux, and that was one of the suggested >options.
On 14/01/2024 in message <MPG.400e3357399e2a06989a9c@news.eternal-september.org> Philip Herlihy
wrote:
I think this is about expectations. You're expecting to leave a machine >holding data in volatile memory indefinitely, and are suprised (and >indignant)
when the standard updating process kicks in. It is indeed standard - it's >been
doing this for years on end, and little has changed about it.
Changing from asking if it's OK to install then asking if it's OK to
re-boot is rather an extreme change from just installing and re-booting
with no warning surely?
I've been using the same W10 (Pro) machine for years on end, and I don't >remember things being any different.
**I tracked down how I configured updates on my machine. Using Group
Policy
Editor, navigate to:
Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows >Update
There are a whole raft of options there. I've used the "Configure
Automatic
Updates" setting 2 "Notify for download and Automatic Install" - that means >nothing starts until I trigger the download offered.
Ultimately, though, if you persist in leaving important data in volatile >memory
without saving it, something's going to spoil your day eventually.
On 16/01/2024 in message <MPG.401094224edfa19a989a9d@news.eternal-september.org> Philip Herlihy
wrote:
**I tracked down how I configured updates on my machine. Using Group >Policy
Editor, navigate to:
Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows >Update
There are a whole raft of options there. I've used the "Configure >Automatic
Updates" setting 2 "Notify for download and Automatic Install" - that means >nothing starts until I trigger the download offered.
Presumably using gpedit.msc?
Ultimately, though, if you persist in leaving important data in volatile >memory
without saving it, something's going to spoil your day eventually.
Since my (then) new girl friend spent 3 hours typing a program into my Vic
20 while I was at work and on returning home I just ran it meaning she did the same the following day (whereupon I saved it on the squeaky cassette recorder before running it) I have never made that mistake again.
I do leave loads of programs all the time and the machines back up
overnight, perhaps I should write an app to keep a log of what's running :-)
On 15/01/2024 10:41, Theo wrote:
[snip]I've never understood why anyone would put a computer to sleep when
it's perfectly possible to turn it off
Because sleep preserves what you were doing on the desktop, whereas
turning it off comes back with a clean desktop.
That's a difference between our attitudes and our workflows. When I come
to the PC in the morning I *WANT* a clean desktop. There's no guarantee
that I'm going to be working on the same things as I was the day before,
nor that I could remember what all those windows were open for anyway.
Even the MacOS way of remembering what was open only half works - you
lose state in web pages which don't always come back (eg pages that
you were served by submitting a form don't reload properly) ...
I close my browser down completely several times during the working day.
I do this because the browser is configured to delete all cookies when closed, and I don't want cookies to persist any longer than necessary.
The idea that something I was looking at in a browser yesterday might
have any relevance to what I'm doing today strikes me as odd. If I want
to revisit a page I'll bookmark it (I have a lot of bookmarks) and if I
think the page may chance I'll scrape it.
Some people were less attentive to the need to update, which is why
automatic updates are now forced on the user, and reboots can happen at inopportune times.
Daniel James wrote:
That's a difference between our attitudes and our workflows. When I come
to the PC in the morning I *WANT* a clean desktop. There's no guarantee
that I'm going to be working on the same things as I was the day before,
nor that I could remember what all those windows were open for anyway.
Indeed, different strokes etc. For me the things that are open is the short term working set, ie an aide memoire of some task not yet completed. For example, when buying insurance you might want several tabs of insurance
sites open at once. If you haven't found what you're looking for then you might have to pause the activity and pick up later at another time.
Once the insurance is bought you can close all the tabs. Meanwhile you can do other things in another set of tabs and keep the insurance ones open
until you have time to go back to it.
I use several virtual desktops to "partition" my tasks, one desktop for
work, one for personal which at this time of year will have tax return
stuff on it, usuallyy one for whoever is my primary customer at the
moment, etc ...
Andy Burns wrote:
I use several virtual desktops to "partition" my tasks
You mean Virtual Desktops ? - or Virtual Machines ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:43:34 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,334 |