# How safe is it without Windows Update?



## shenton (Mar 31, 2007)

The Windows Update in Control Panel said this "Always install the latest updates to enhance your computer's security and performance".

What I did find is the performance of my computer "degrade" as time passes if I run Windows Update.

I had a Windows Vista, the start up takes a good long 5 minutes after hundreds of windows update installed on it. Only after that long wait, I was able to open Windows Explorer or Internet Explorer without a busy mouse icon.

Now I bought a new PC with Windows 7. The start up was fast, I can open Internet Explorer almost immediately. I ran Windows Update. It installed 66 updates for Microsoft Windows and 39 updates for MS Office, MS Work and MS Silverlight.

These 105 updates slowed down the start up of Windows 7. I can no longer open Internet Explorer almost immediately when I turn on the computer. It takes a little longer now.

What I want to avoid is when Windows 7 will take a long time to start up, just like my Windows Vista after a period of running Windows Update.

So I'm thinking of not running Windows Update. I will set Windows Update to "Never check for updates".

I'm a home user, using my computer for email and web browsing. I have firewall and anti-virus with Norton Internet Security installed on my computer. I don't want any of those updates from Microsoft as it slowed the computer down. Also, a majority of them are not windows related. If there is a major security risk, I would hear about it in news site like CNN or Yahoo. So I will then download the patches manually for that security risk only. By not installing any of those unwanted updates from Microsoft, my computer will stay fast.

I'm unsure if this is wise. So I search the web a bit on this topic.



> [questionable link deleted by mod]
> 
> So to answer the question - should I use windows update? If you've got a lot of infrastructure you want to protect, yes. If you're a small guy, one PC at home, one laptop; even a few computers thrown together in your home network. The answer is no. I don't recommend it, anyway. Just throw on your windows firewall, Black Ice Defender, Norton, Avast....what have you. And enjoy browsing. That's about it.


This above blog thinks it is alright to not run Windows Update. I like that and I will want to stop running Windows Update.

Am I doing something really silly here by not running Windows Update? Thought I want to hear some views before I do something that I'm unsure if I should be doing.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Actually, I think you are a shill for a site pushing a softcore porn screensaver. Windows updates won't degrade the performance of your machine, but malware will.


----------



## shenton (Mar 31, 2007)

Snagglegaster said:


> Actually, I think you are a shill for a site pushing a softcore porn screensaver. Windows updates won't degrade the performance of your machine, but malware will.


It is a genuine question and I appreciate feedback from experts who know.

My Vista machine takes so long to "start up" because of Windows Update. I'm not a tech expert and I think Windows need to load Windows first and then load each of those updates/patches individually. This itself slowed down the computer. I find it frustrating to wait for 5 minutes before I can fully use my computer.

So now I want to avoid this updates/patches loading with my new computer. I am thinking of not running windows update but unsure if this is advisable.

Any expert opinion?


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

I don't think the updates are responsible for your long Startups. You may have way too many non-Microsoft programs loading with Windows at Startup.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

I think that there is no reason to not install Windows updates except for any that you clearly don't need because you never use the feature. I also think that Windows systems slow down over time just because of additional programs running and incomplete un-installs that leave tasks or services running unobserved.

*Snagglegaster*, that comment about screensavers went way over my head. I cannot see to what you are referring.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

Sorry, I didn't respond to your question about safety. It's very unsafe for you and the rest of us using the internet to ignore Windows critical updates. Several of the big virus and worm "disasters" were simply taking advantage of security holes announced *and patched* months or years ago, but many of those who did not update got infected.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

I turned off "Windows Update", because it always started automatically at the worst moments. I don't like to be disturbed when I'm working on something.

Anti-Executable (AE), one of my security software, which is always ON, can cause problems in Windows Update, because it doesn't allow any (unauthorized) new executables.
AE screwed up "Automatic Windows Update" in the beginning, because I didn't have the time to turn off AE, that's why I had to turn off Windows Update.

So I do Windows Update manually, when AE is turned OFF, it was a must, I didn't have any other choice. Security can be a pain-in-the-a..
I also had to turn off the automatic update of all my software.
I don't like automatic updates either, I'm the boss on my computer and I don't allow any good or bad change without my approval because updates aren't always an improvement.

This is not an expert opinion, it's a sophisticated computer illiterate opinion.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

shenton said:


> I'm not a tech expert and I think Windows need to load Windows first and then load each of those updates/patches individually.


Updates don't load individually after Windows. They replace existing files with newer versions to plug vulnerabilities and they still load with the operating system.


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

Security updates are a Must. And most updates from MS nowadays are security updates. Rarely do they push out performance enhancements. You have to know that hackers reverse engineer those patches to get attack code. And these reverse engineered attacks can come out in just days after a patch was pushed out. If you don't patch, you will fall victim to malicious code. 

Hackers don't discern who you are or what you use your machine for. They just want your machine to add to their botnet. Then they can further spread malware, viruses, spam and use it to attack still others out there. 

Antivirus programs are your last line of defense. Patches are preventative measures so that security vulnerabilities are closed in the first place. 

To speed up the loading of Windows, you should run 'msconfig' and look at the startup tab to see what programs are automatically run when you login.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

*Snagglegaster*, now I see what all the excitement is about, and removed the link.

For those who are curious a link in the first post led to a blog, whose page had randomly appearing ads. One of them is not the kind we like to see here. I don't see any ads with the Ad-block add-on with Firefox, but with IE and refreshing the site several times I found it.

Will assume it was unintentional by *shenton*.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Windows Update makes you reboot slower, my reboot was in the beginning 115 seconds and now 135 seconds and nothing changed except updatings. I had the same experience with win2000pro.

I've spent one year in a Malware Forum and all helpers insisted on updating Windows.


----------



## shenton (Mar 31, 2007)

TerryNet said:


> *Snagglegaster*, now I see what all the excitement is about, and removed the link.
> 
> For those who are curious a link in the first post led to a blog, whose page had randomly appearing ads. One of them is not the kind we like to see here. I don't see any ads with the Ad-block add-on with Firefox, but with IE and refreshing the site several times I found it.
> 
> Will assume it was unintentional by *shenton*.


Yes, that was unintentional. I only wanted to see what people has to say about the point raised by the blog on not running windows update.

By the way, I suppose the ads are porn? Is that why the blog is not wanted here? Suppose it is just 'regular ads', would it be acceptable?

Just curious, not that I want to post more links.


----------



## shenton (Mar 31, 2007)

ErikAlbert said:


> Windows Update makes you reboot slower, my reboot was in the beginning 115 seconds and now 135 seconds and nothing changed except updatings. I had the same experience with win2000pro.
> 
> I've spent one year in a Malware Forum and all helpers insisted on updating Windows.


I have a brand new computer, it starts up almost 'immediately'. After running windows update and installing 105 patches, the computer now takes 20 seconds longer to start up. I suppose it will start up slower as I install more and more patches, up to the 5-minutes start up I have on the Vista computer - that computer has fewer than 5 software installed on it (MS Office, VLC Media Player etc)

In any case, the Vista machine I had have not been receiving Windows Updates for some time, I still set it to receive updates but I think Microsoft stopped sending updates to Vista machine. From the time Microsoft stopped sending updates to Vista machines to today, I have not have a security issue with the Vista machine. Of course, I have my firewall and anti-virus from Norton Internet Security which is stopped attacks and scan malicious files.

Also, I have set my workplace Windows XP computer not to run updates for many years and never had a security issue with it. The workplace has firewall and anti-virus installed.

I could still be wrong of course, I am not a computer geek. I may well end up running windows update if it is really not safe.

I had planned to stop running windows update but run only those patches for those vulnerability which are serious enough to be printed on the newspapers. For those, I will download and install manually. By doing this, I don't need to burden the computer with the hundreds of patches/updates.

For those who do not run windows update, I like to hear your experiences.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

> By the way, I suppose the ads are porn? Is that why the blog is not wanted here?


Yes, I deleted the link only because of that one "softcore porn screensaver" ad. Otherwise, it's fine to link to an article or blog such as that when it is relevant to your post.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Just pointing out that some av/antimalware apps do seem to slow down boot times after numerous updates.
I had this issue when using Norton AV some years ago and just earlier this year, I uninstalled Asquared and boot times became noticeably quicker.


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

> but I think Microsoft stopped sending updates to Vista machine


Nope, the Vista updates are still continuing. The regular update time is the second tuesday of the month.

Delaying patches until news hit the newspapers is like not washing your hands until there is an epidemic. There are countless people who come to Techguy asking for help because their machines got infected. They didn't make it to the news.


----------



## shenton (Mar 31, 2007)

lunarlander said:


> Nope, the Vista updates are still continuing. The regular update time is the second tuesday of the month.
> 
> Delaying patches until news hit the newspapers is like not washing your hands until there is an epidemic. There are countless people who come to Techguy asking for help because their machines got infected. They didn't make it to the news.





Microsoft said:


> http://support.microsoft.com/ph/11732#tab0
> 
> Support for Windows Vista without any service packs installed ended on April 13, 2010. To continue receiving security updates for Windows, make sure youre running Windows Vista with Service Pack 2 (SP2).


Vista updates will continue if you are on Service Pack 2.

My Vista computer was never on SP1 or SP2. This is because I was on Windows Update on day 1 and Windows Update never put me on SP1 or SP2. I just relied on what Windows Update dishes out to me.

People got hit by virus or malware because they visit small time sites, porn sites, pirated movie sites, small time games sites, these are the sites that hit a person.

To be safe:
- Visit only sites from trusted sources, big time corporations like Fortune 500 companies etc
- never download anything from unknown sources (eg. if you need freeware, download only from CNET)
- never open any attachement from unknown sources
- never visit sites listed earlier (small time sites, porn, pirated movies site etc)
- always have a firewall
- always have anti-virus

Examples of vulnerabilities that are serious enough to be printed in the news (and this requires a patch):

Microsoft warns of 'serious' software hole 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1308267.stm

Fix your Windows, says Microsoft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1722745.stm

The analogy would be stay away from the crowd to avoid an epidemic. Visit only relatives and trusted friends. Watch for an epidemic. If there is an epidemic, wash hands, put on gloves, install patch and quarantine self until epidemic clears.

Thought it is safe not to update because
- My Vista machine has not been running windows update for a while and has no security issue 
- My workplace XP has not been running windows update for a few year and has no security issue
Both computers are protected by firewall and antivirus

Have not decided on what to do yet, because there is not enough 'data'.

Will need to research further.


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

> small time sites, porn sites, pirated movie sites, small time games sites, these are the sites that hit a person


What you gave was a good guideline, and still is. But the times have changed a little:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10041743-83.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/03/treasury_websites_attack/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/11/mass_webpage_attack/


----------



## pyritechips (Jun 3, 2002)

Phantom010 said:


> I don't think the updates are responsible for your long Startups. You may have way too many non-Microsoft programs loading with Windows at Startup.


Very good point. I am not familiar with Windows 7 but I am assuming it still has* MSCONFIG*? I would go there and uncheck everything that isn't essential. The only thing that starts with my XP is my mouse/keyboard software, SAS and my A/V. Lots of software like to have itself start with Windows when you boot - a huge and unnecessary resource drain.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Phantom is very right. I also used msconfig and it makes a significant difference.


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

Well, I can't comment on individual updates making for longer boot times, but on a XP system that I just installed, the service pack 3 made the computer boot slower. When it was fresh installed (SP2 onboard), the Windows startup sliding bar slide across only twice. And after installing SP3, it did it around 6 times. But this is a small price to pay in comparison to getting your computer pwned.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

shenton said:


> Yes, that was unintentional. I only wanted to see what people has to say about the point raised by the blog on not running windows update.
> 
> By the way, I suppose the ads are porn? Is that why the blog is not wanted here? Suppose it is just 'regular ads', would it be acceptable?
> 
> Just curious, not that I want to post more links.


Give me a break! All that "Oh, are the ads porn?" is ingenious. There are hundreds of links to this topic that are free of pornware, yet you didn't link to a single one of them. Nice try bluffing it out, though. Shill


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

Give it a rest, *Snagglegaster*. This issue was seen by the site owner, at least one Administrator and half a dozen moderators. If any of them did not agree with the way I handled it we would have heard about it. If you're feeling argumentative visit the Civil Debate forum.


----------



## peterjhn (Nov 4, 2010)

Slow speed of system is not because of window updation but it may be due to large number of files which you run on your system and your RAM is not capable according to that.


----------

