The fact is ofcourse that if users could reject update they didn't want then they could just install the security ones, never bother with the others (which are rarely of any use) and rarely if ever have big problems caused by updates. Most of the time the updates which cause trouble are actually some pretty pointless ones, especially those designed to change certain currency symbols to reflect the ways nations switch currency over time. There are a huge number of updates which are only of relevance to a tiny few, like currency symbol changes, only those few actually need them. The same infact goes for a lot of non-security bug fixes. If users could just refuse the updates they don't want then this whole business wouldn't be an issue. Making previously optional things mandatory almost always leads to problems. I for one will never be upgrading, the inability to reject unwanted updates is one of my reasons for this decision. Users who feel like I do are best sticking with operating systems where they can block unwanted updates.
As a note about "fixing things by upgrading", I absolutely agree britechguy. You don't fix dodgy foundations with an extra floor on top of your building. Users having problems with windows 7/8/8.1 systems are best to go back to a good system image or to restore to the factory fresh state, although things like removing un-necessary programs, clearing up old temp files (these can add to gigabytes if you don't clear them for years), making sure your antivirus works and you aren't infected, stopping un-necessary startup tasks... these all do a lot more good for systems that trying to upgrade them does.
Edited by rp88, 21 April 2016 - 02:19 PM.
Back on this site, for a while anyway, been so busy the last year.
My systems:2 laptops, intel i3 processors, windows 8.1 installed on the hard-drive and linux mint 17.3 MATE installed to USB