> "Windows has been notorious for forcing updates down your throat"
in the same way cars are notorious for forcing you to run out of gas while you're driving them and leaving you stranded... because you didn't make time to refill them before it became a problem.
> "Things like this is exactly why people hate auto-updates."
And people also hate making time for routine maintenance, and hate getting malware from exploits they didn't patch, and companies hate getting DDoS'd by compromised Windows PCs the owners didn't patch, and companies hate downtime from attackers taking them offline. There isn't an answer which will please everyone.
This isn't really a good faith response. This prevention of functionality during a critical period while forcing an update would be like if a modern car refused to drive during an emergency due to a forced over the air update that paused the ability to drive till the update was finished.
The parent response wasn't good faith; it was leaning on an emergency in a hospital department caused by CrowdStrike to whine about Microsoft in trollbait style.
> "This prevention of functionality during a critical period while forcing an update would be like if a modern car refused to drive during an emergency"
Machines don't know if there's an emergency going on; if you don't do maintenance, knowing that the thing will fail if you don't, then you're rolling the dice on whether it fails right when you need it. It's akin to not renewing an SSL certificate - you knew it was coming, you didn't deal with it, now it's broken - despite all reasonable arguments that the connection is approximately as safe 1 minute after midnight as it was 1 minute before, if the smartphone app (or whatever) doesn't give you any expired cert override then complaining does nothing. Windows updates are released the same day every month, and have been mandatory for eight years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/07/20/windows...
And we all know why - because Windows had a reputation of being horribly insecure, and when Microsoft patched things, nobody installed the patches. So now people have to install the patches. Complaining "I want to do it myself" leads to the very simple reply: you can - why didn't you do it yourself before it caused you a problem?
If you're still stubbornly refusing to install them, refusing to disable them, refusing to move to macOS or Linux, and then complaining that they forced you to update at an inconvenient time, you should expect people to point out how ridiculous (and off-topic) you're being.
But that's the thing, forced updates are not akin to maintenance or certs that expire on an annual basis. I'm not sure where you seem to be getting your "you should expect people to point out how ridiculous you're being" line from. Your the only one I'm seeing arguing this idea.
Disabling forced updates by using proper managed updates features that exist longer than "forced updates" had is table stakes for IT. In fact, it was considered important and critical before Windows became major OS in business.
Not setting computers that are in any critical path on proper maintenance schedule (which, btw, overrides automatic updates on Windows and doesn't require extra licenses!) is the same as willfully ignoring maintenance just because the car didn't punch you in the face every time you need to up some fluids
I agree that it is willfully ignoring maintenance, but I completely disagree with the analogy that it is the same as ignoring a fluid change in a car. A car will break down and may stop working without fluid changes. The same is almost assuredly not usually true if a windows, or other, update is ignored. If you disagree, then I'd be happy to review any evidence you have that these updates really are always as critical as you think.
A lot of things that come as "mandatory patches" in IT, not just for Windows, are things that tend to generate recalls - or "sucks to be you, buy new car" in automotive world.
In more professional settings than private small car ownership, you often will both have regular maintenance updates provided and mandates to follow them. Sometimes they are optional because your environment doesn't depend on them, sometimes they are mandatory fixes, sometimes they change from optional to mandatory overnight when previous assumptions no longer apply.
Several years ago a bit over 100 people and uncounted amount of possible more had their lives endangered because an extra airflow directing piece of metal was optional, and after the incident it was quickly made mandatory, with hundreds of aircraft being stopped to have the fix applied (which previously was only required for hot locations - climate change really bit it).
Similarly, when you drive your car and it fails to operate, that's just you. When it's a more critical service, you're either facing corporate, or in worst case, governmental questions.
in the same way cars are notorious for forcing you to run out of gas while you're driving them and leaving you stranded... because you didn't make time to refill them before it became a problem.
> "Things like this is exactly why people hate auto-updates."
And people also hate making time for routine maintenance, and hate getting malware from exploits they didn't patch, and companies hate getting DDoS'd by compromised Windows PCs the owners didn't patch, and companies hate downtime from attackers taking them offline. There isn't an answer which will please everyone.