M$ $cumbags, as always they were...

it remind me AVG that were detecting M$ Windows as a malware... lol

Do they test these updates before pushing them. This is why I'm against Windows 10 forcing updates on us. We should be allowed to pause a new update for at least a month so if there are problems it can be fixed. And I don't want to hear you can with Enterprise as the average PC user is not running Enterprise!

Another good one from Microsoft, the largest spyware maker

You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Self Destruct. I mean M$ giveth and M$ taketh away.

Don't have the essentials, just the Defender, updated it this morning, and all fine, thank god (Win 7 64bit) :P

CoMmAnDrX2:

Do they test these updates before pushing them. This is why I'm against Windows 10 forcing updates on us. We should be allowed to pause a new update for at least a month so if there are problems it can be fixed. And I don't want to hear you can with Enterprise as the average PC user is not running Enterprise!

You don't need enterprise to disable updates. I have mine set to never check for updates, only does it when i manually click check for updates. You can also set it to *only* notify you of updates.

In several years' time I've experienced maybe two false positives with Defender, which is what makes this story so interesting for me. I've been extremely happy with with Defender because of its fantastic no-false-positives operation in each of my systems at home and at work. By comparison, the first time I fired up Malware Bytes (a couple of years back), just to see if there was anything Defender had missed, I got a whopping 42 (forty-two) flagged "possibles"--42 suspect files, first scan! My immediate impression was that Defender had not been doing much of anything and that thanks to that I was now back to the Swiss-cheese system of the 1990's again...! Surprised and a little alarmed, of course, I began reviewing each "possible" by itself in detail inside the Malware Bytes program. My surprise turned to irritation which finally morphed into a bit of anger at the Malware Bytes "flags" because--every single one of those 42 "possibles"--without exception--turned out to be something utterly harmless, not a "possible" at all--for instance, partial, abandoned *text strings* left behind by browsers/uninstalled programs, etc. Not a single one of the "forty-two events" was either a virus or a malware program of any description. Not even close to being harmful. IE, Defender had been working fine after all, but sparing me the tedious false-positive routine. That was the day Malware Bytes hit me with 42 false positives, wasted a chunk of my time, and the last day I used Malware Bytes, too. Any AV/Malware program which has to resort to something like this to convince n00b users that it's "working" is not a program I want on my boxes. Norton's is still the kludge it's always been--like spraying gel inside your computer works, basically...ugh. Almost every day you can read in a game forum about someone who has just downloaded a perfectly legitimate file direct from a game developer's site, but his AV program (rarely Defender I noticed with some irony) flagged the file with a false positive and the poor guy or gal decided to *trust the av program* more than the game developer--even though he may have just dropped $50 buying the game the same developer made. (AVG--but not only AVG, lots of AV programs get named)--is a name that often pops up among others.) I've seen this many times in various forums. Sure, rationally it makes no sense at all, but by and large these people are inexperienced enough to think that their AV program is telling the truth and their game developer is negligent enough to put up compromised files on his own web site...;) These users aren't really sure what a "false positive" is. Anyway, I'm not a cheerleader for Defender--it's just that not only is it free, which makes it the right price, but it works as I've seen on the few occasions I have run into something nasty on the 'net. And it rather behooves Microsoft to make Defender work as well as possible since Windows is their OS and it is they who will suffer if Windows ever becomes the Swiss cheese it *used to be* back in the 80's and 90's...ie, Microsoft has a vested interest in Defender working optimally at all times. OTOH, developers who charge for their AV/Malware programs have a vested interest in convincing the user that Windows is inherently unsafe (it isn't), and that Defender can't be any good because it's free (which is, of course, not true, either.) Bottom line is that no software is perfect, and even the best, least invasive AV program out there (which I think is Defender) is going to give a false positive every blue moon. That is the one AV/Malware test that you *never* see the so-called "testing sites" for comparing AV programs use--a test for *false positives* to see which AV program was best at not producing them. As I discovered, the so-called "test" sites have a good reason for not wanting it known how often their AV software will return false positives....! Most of the "tests" one reads on the 'net are paid for by a non-free AV program publishers, which ought to be considered whenever reading such "test results", eh? Caveat Emptor.

sverek:

You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Self Destruct. I mean M$ giveth and M$ taketh away.

"They got the update they needed and not the update they deserved"........ "MS, can we trust him". "Windows users......take control of your OS" "Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as it's newest OS Windows 10 destroys itself, then the movement back to Windows 7 will be unstoppable this time" And with that, i am spent. lol

rl66:

it remind me AVG that were detecting M$ Windows as a malware... lol

hey hey there are people here that will say windows is malware now... False detection on bootloaders can be bery bery bad

rl66:

it remind me AVG that were detecting M$ Windows as a malware... lol

That sounds like AVG actually got something right....

Not again! Is there someone that can maybe help me with a solid way of disabling the Windows updates on Windows 10 64bit? I did follow a few guides, but for some reason it still come through. I disabled windows updates in my settings, made my connection a metered connection. But looks like I still get some of the updates. I'm not against the updates, it's just that I'm had this not booting issue happen to me 3 times now after a new update and I'm at a point here I will rather not get updates than to sit with a issue like this every 3 months. Please if there is a guaranteed way of disabling the updates somehow, please inbox me. Much appreciated in advance!

RooiKreef:

Not again! Is there someone that can maybe help me with a solid way of disabling the Windows updates on Windows 10 64bit? I did follow a few guides, but for some reason it still come through. I disabled windows updates in my settings, made my connection a metered connection. But looks like I still get some of the updates. I'm not against the updates, it's just that I'm had this not booting issue happen to me 3 times now after a new update and I'm at a point here I will rather not get updates than to sit with a issue like this every 3 months. Please if there is a guaranteed way of disabling the updates somehow, please inbox me. Much appreciated in advance!

You can disable the windows update service, this will then stop windows from automatically updating, you can then re-enable it when you want to run windows update. In case you can't find Services you can type services.msc in Run, that will open Services. Winaero Tweaker also has a function for controlling updates, it's a handy little tool https://winaero.com/download.php?view.1796

Well if it can not boot then there is no security risk ! So it is 100% secure!

Thanx Kiss. I will give it a try.