someone please explain

bassfisher6522

bassfisher6522

Sysnative Staff
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Posts
345
I'm running 1909 and have set feature updates to be delayed 90 days. After turning on PC this morning I find that 2004 is being installed, as I type this it's at 93%. How can this happen? Some please explain this to me. This clean install of 1909 is only 60 days old.
 
Thanks. That article is a year old, almost, but at least there's some sort of explanation. Why can't MS just fix all the broken crap....I'm mean really, enough is enough.

As for the 2nd link...I've seen something very similar to that back in the day. I can't remember if it was for 8 or 10. I did use it.
 
And you also have to add in what edition of Windows 10 is involved. What you can get away with under Home and Pro are different.

This situation does strike me as odd, though, since it's very rare these days for any Feature Update to apply itself unless the end user triggers it via the Download and install link. It can (and is supposed to) happen if you're running a version that is on the cusp of going out of support, but otherwise not.

I had a client machine come to me waiting to be restarted for 2004 to be applied, but I have no idea how the install initially began on that box.

But I have learned that deferred/delayed is generally taken to mean "from date of initial release by Microsoft" while paused means just that - it won't apply for some set pause period.

I now have Version 2004 on all of my machines after the status change from "not quite ready" to Download and install about 1.5 weeks ago, but I did the upgrade via ISO file on all of them. It's working perfectly.
 
britechguy said:
This situation does strike me as odd, though, since it's very rare these days for any Feature Update to apply itself unless the end user triggers it via the Download and install link. It can (and is supposed to) happen if you're running a version that is on the cusp of going out of support, but otherwise not.
Click to expand...
Running 1909 with latest updates, windows 10 pro.

The thing is I didn't initiate it or anything. I'm very sure of that.

britechguy said:
But I have learned that deferred/delayed is generally taken to mean "from date of initial release by Microsoft" while paused means just that - it won't apply for some set pause period.
Click to expand...
Could very well be the issue.

Anyway....thanks for the input.
 
I'm an early adopter as I have more backup images than I have money. As I've said in the past, I manage 16+ computers, majority @ work, home, Family, Frunningriends. My personal computers, 2 of them are on the Windows Insider Fast Ring. All of them are on varying configs and running 2004. All are running smoothly. Most are on 2 Full weekly backups, daily incremental.

I always say, if you're backing up and want to go with the upgrade, go for it. What is it, a 10-20 minute restore process?

Again, these are only my opinions, nothing more.
 
xrobwx71 said:
What is it, a 10-20 minute restore process?
Click to expand...

Not that I don't agree with your basic premise that there's little harm in trying any Feature Update if you've made a full system image update before doing so, but the speed of the restore process is directly dependent on both how fast your backup drive is and how fast your system drive is in addition to how large the backup is.

The machine I'm typing from has a 2TB HDD, of which about 1.2 TB is still free, and I use a USB 3.0 backup HDD. It takes about 5 to 6 hours to restore.

Still not a big deal, as if I have to restore I just kick the restore off before going to bed. If I had an SSD in the computer this would shave of a huge amount of time, but I still doubt I'd get down to something under an hour.

There are still an awful lot of systems out there that retain the HDD OS drive they came with. Doing a restore from backup on those is a significantly slower process than when SSDs are involved.
 
britechguy said:
Not that I don't agree with your basic premise that there's little harm in trying any Feature Update if you've made a full system image update before doing so, but the speed of the restore process is directly dependent on both how fast your backup drive is and how fast your system drive is in addition to how large the backup is.

The machine I'm typing from has a 2TB HDD, of which about 1.2 TB is still free, and I use a USB 3.0 backup HDD. It takes about 5 to 6 hours to restore.

Still not a big deal, as if I have to restore I just kick the restore off before going to bed. If I had an SSD in the computer this would shave of a huge amount of time, but I still doubt I'd get down to something under an hour.

There are still an awful lot of systems out there that retain the HDD OS drive they came with. Doing a restore from backup on those is a significantly slower process than when SSDs are involved.
Click to expand...
True, I should have been less ambiguous. Thanks!
 

Has Sysnative Forums helped you? Please consider donating to help us support the site!

Back
Top