Block Windows 10 Creator Windows Update Service from downloading Hardware Driver updates

[Regedit32]

Regedit32 submitted a new article:

Block Windows 10 Creator Windows Update Service from downloading Hardware Driver updates - How to prevent Windows Update Service from updating your Hardware Drivers.

With the release of Windows 10 Creator, Microsoft removed the GUI Windows 10 Professional and Enterprise users had for blocking Hardware Driver updates in the Windows Update Service. Home users never had this option.

There are still ways to achieve this though both via Group Policy Editor and / or your Registry. This can be useful as not all updated drivers are good, and as the adage goes, 'If it is not broken, don't fix it!'.

Read more about this article...

 

[Norton]

Regedit Great job, a lot of work went into this

 

[Data]

I use Group Policy to block Windows Update Drivers.
This was one of the articles I was going to fill, so thanks for that

Another reason to block drivers from WU (my reason) WU decided to downgrade my NIC drivers, I upgraded, it downgraded 1 minute later and round it went.

Another method This Microsoft tool https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...driver-update-from-reinstalling-in-windows-10 but that apparently they say is temporary is a solution, though you probably need to run it each time you spot a driver you want to block.

Edit: was this the tool MS blocked?

@Regedit32 should your Article be located in the Overview tab or am I missing something?

I also have a suggestion, that your the method title be set in larger font to distinguish where one method begins/ends

I would also note this is valid for any Windows 10 release, not just creators update.

 

[Regedit32]

Yes Data it will work with earlier releases.

I make mention of Creator as its the final release where Microsoft for some reason chose to remove the GUI from Professional edition that was originally there during the testing stage.

Also, because the process of installing Creator see's Microsoft automatically updating drivers during the install which for most will be fine, but for some may in fact cause issues.

The way you create articles now has changed - whoever created this software has made some changes. I'm still adjusting to the change so I just published the article as is, without worrying about the Over View tab or font size.

The tool Microsoft provides is fine, but to be honest it's just easier to change the Registry or make use of the LGPE rather than muck around with the tool every time you want to check for updates. Thanks for mentioning it though; I forgot myself to link to it in the article as a reference.

I had meant to link to some Microsoft Documentation in regards to the forced driver updates via Cumulative or Security updates, but I need to verify that it will be OK to offer a link to their information given Microsoft's desire to have people going direct to their source, not via third party sites like our own.

Thanks for the feed back though Data.

Regards,

Regedit32

 

[Data]

Thanks for the feed back though Data.

You are welcome. As long as it helps.

I had meant to link to some Microsoft Documentation in regards to the forced driver updates via Cumulative or Security updates, but I need to verify that it will be OK to offer a link to their information given Microsoft's desire to have people going direct to their source, not via third party sites like our own.

Microsoft do want, Microsoft desire, but thank Dr. Soong, Microsoft does not own the intrawebs No matter how much they try to assimilate all, much like the Borg.
I cant see why you shouldn't be able to link to their docs, is this an internal forums thing or is there some Microsoft policy that says not to?

In many ways 3rd party sites like ours is more informative and more helpful than their own forums and support, its a fact, and are my first and preferred port of call rather than asking Chat support who often know less than I ( noting I know squat. )

anyway great article congrats + like.

 

[Regedit32]

I need to check with Forum owner Data as apparently on occasion some site owners - in this case Microsoft - have been known to issue take down orders. I'm not American so not sure precisely what the rules are.

It will probably be fine. My issue with linking directly to documents as opposed to simply quoting them is Microsoft have a habit of changing locations which can rapidly make a url obsolete.

An example of this was I wanted to open a section for users to share Microsoft stand-alone files for the older pc users who had to reinstall but could no longer download from Microsoft site as they had taken them down. It turns out you are not allowed to do this. Logically for good reason too - to prevent third party sites offering manipulated downloads (that may contain a virus, or remove proprietary elements), and for commercial reasons as Microsoft want users to migrate to their 'Service' which in time will increase their Dividends for shareholders.

 

[Norton]

Regedit Personally, I like the the article format. The "Overview" tab gives readers a quick condensed article summary, a choice of whether to it pertains to their situation and pursue the thread further. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Thanks again for taking the time to inform members and save a lot of grief.

 

[Data]

I need to check with Forum owner Data as apparently on occasion some site owners - in this case Microsoft - have been known to issue take down orders. I'm not American so not sure precisely what the rules are.

This forum is owned by Microsoft?

An example of this was I wanted to open a section for users to share Microsoft stand-alone files for the older pc users who had to reinstall but could no longer download from Microsoft site as they had taken them down. It turns out you are not allowed to do this. Logically for good reason too - to prevent third party sites offering manipulated downloads (that may contain a virus, or remove proprietary elements), and for commercial reasons as Microsoft want users to migrate to their 'Service' which in time will increase their Dividends for shareholders.

This is an interesting point, allow me to share my view.

All Microsoft binary files are protected by copyright, and distributing outside Microsofts network is technically piracy, this includes ISO's, patches etc., but if all you are hosting is a link to a Microsoft source for said binary, this is perfectly legal, thus no reason to takedown is valid.
Its true, like you say, and I fully agree, some less scrupulous individuals/governments agencies will alter files to distribute spyware/malware/RATs/etc. and offer alternate source for download. But on that subject, despite being valid, its the chicken and the egg, argument, if Microsoft had more flexible practices then this situation be less likely to happen, also by the same token, if Microsofts chief concern would be security (which is not), then they would plug decade old 0 day flaws in all version Windows.

These official Microsoft policies/parctices are ironic and funny (peculiar). Apologies for taking this discussion on a tangent... Must resist temptation

 

[Regedit32]

Hi Data,

No this is an independent Forum.

When I said 'in this case Microsoft', I was meaning Microsoft who created the Library of information on the bundled driver updates, is the owner of that information and may not wish it to be duplicated here in our Forum; thus I'd need to check with our Forum owner to see whether he or his wife knows whether its OK to duplicate that information here. Posting an url to that information would be fine, and I'm happy to do that if people are interested in reading it.

Re the binary files. I agree they have no issue with us or anyone us offering a URL to their website hosting their files. In this instance though I was thinking it would be great if we could host files, Microsoft no longer provide downloads for given the life cycle of X software or OS is now ended. Our Forum owner pointed out to me the issues with doing that and hence it won't be happening here.

No need to apologize for the shift in focus - I'm rarely focused anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Besides, it's nice the Forum is taking off and people like yourself are keen on offering input as we all learn from the intercourse of knowledge and experience, which is the purpose of our Forum.

 

[davehc]

This is a bit over my head, but I believe Regedit is , basically, referring to Older Microsoft OSs, not binary files. But, the same argument applies - The downloads are not for publication on third party sites.
I do muse, though, why Microsoft would wish to keep , under lock and key, an OS which has been officially declared as unsupported for some years.
If, however, users wish to take the risk, there are many sites which offer these pirated downloads. Activation, though, if you do not have an original key, could result in a similar problem.

 

[Data]

This is a bit over my head, but I believe Regedit is , basically, referring to Older Microsoft OSs, not binary files.

I do note for personal clarity, that OS's are a collection of binary files.

I do muse, though, why Microsoft would wish to keep , under lock and key, an OS which has been officially declared as unsupported for some years.

You probably know this already or maybe this is what was referred as to as old in this discussion, some things are classed as abandonware, there are some sites on the internet serving up those, I guess that is the only exception of what is legal.

Personally though, I never heard of anyone being thrown under the bus because they are providing support and offer file xyz, but stranger things have happened.

Always best to get the persons responsible for site offering those 3rd party hosted files or content, which is @Regedit32 does.

Sorry for noise

 

[Norton]

Providing links should be acceptable.
I"m the Owner / Administrator of a forum. I believe all forum rules are all similar re posting. It's the same as posting copyright pictures, should someone complain, then the Administrator has to take them down or risk losing forum privileges.

 

[Trouble]

I do it all the time.
I will "Quote" a sentence or a paragraph or two from another web based resource, but....
I always add the "Resource" in the form of a link to where I read it and where applicable include my own original comment as to why I think it might be applicable in a particular thread.

Where forums such as ours run into DMCA (Take down notice) problems, is when someone copies and pastes information (content) from another resource in its' source form without a foot note of accreditation as to where it came from as if it were their own original content...... that's plagiarization and as a rule is not generally permitted on any forum and generally is just considered bad etiquette.

Quoting information from another web resource (as long as you footnote the quote with a credit (link) to the resource, as well as linking to another site that may have valuable information that may help someone, instead of reinventing the wheel....... I would think would be acceptable in most instances.

Hosting a repository of applications, be they utilities, productivity suites, or Operating Systems
OR
Files such as Music, Images, Videos or Games that are not products of your original work
IS a form of "theft", which most owners of such products take very seriously.

 

[Regedit32]

Here is a link to the Documentation I was referring to for anyone interested in exploring Microsoft's TechNet information. It may inspire you to come up with some additional solutions to this Driver Update issue.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us...ure-wufb#exclude-drivers-from-quality-updates

Also, it occurred to me my previous posts on hosting files may be interpreted incorrectly so to clarify:

• I like many Windows users still use some fairly old applications, such as Office XP Professional.
• My idea was whether we could host stand-alone Service Packs that others may still have on their computers, given Microsoft no longer supports some of their Applications and Operating Systems, and thus you can no longer download these Service Packs from Microsoft.
• Having discussed this with our Forum owner and other Admins it soon became apparent that we cannot do that, and given some people could intentionally manipulate files or even provide illicit ones, I am happy to accept that ruling here.

Regards,

Regedit32

 

[davehc]

"Where forums such as ours run into DMCA (Take down notice) problems, is when someone copies and pastes information (content) from another resource in its' source form without a foot note of accreditation as to where it came from as if it were their own original content...... that's plagiarisation and as a rule is not generally permitted on any forum and generally is just considered bad etiquette."

Good argument, and interesting discussion. I think, possibly, a flaw in this is that many help items can be attributed to many posters, who may have coincidentally had the same idea about the same period. It is difficult, if you are looking at legality or etiquette, to know where the line lies.
During the Vista era I wrapped up a couple or so item into .reg or bat packages, free for all. One at least, is posted extensively on the web. I have no good or bad feelings regarding this. It could have been me or, at time countless others who may have had the idea first.

 

[Regedit32]

During the Vista era I wrapped up a couple or so item into .reg or bat packages, free for all. One at least, is posted extensively on the web.

I've seen such files, where the original Author has included comments within the code to either identify themselves as the author, or acknowledge any other authors they may have borrowed from. I feel that is perfectly reasonable, and if I provided such a file myself, I'd be happy for others to share it - provided they did not edit out those comments to make it appear they wrote the code themselves.

Personally, though, when I write a batch or REG file for the purpose of helping others I don't bother with claiming it as my own code. I've posted the information and don't need a pat on the back per se - my motivation is simply to help someone out, and if they in turn can help someone else out by 'Paying it forward' to borrow a movie theme, I'm happy for them to do so.

When I code a full running application on the other hand, then whilst I might offer that freely for all users, I do expect my Authorship and /or accreditation to others information in the code to be left in tact, given the hours involved in coding and testing before I release this.

As a realist though I realize there are people out there who really do not give a toss at all about others so in the end I just have to accept some people will alter anything I code if they want to.

For that reason, when I look at applications and batch files, and REG files provided online, I make sure I read all the poster has to say about the application to make sure that:

1. I fully understand the copyright details of said file, and
2. That they themselves know what it is they are talking about. It's usually pretty easy to spot someone just hosting other peoples ideas and work, who have no idea how or why it works, and in that scenario you certainly want to verify this before running said file or application on your own computer; lest it do more harm than good.

 

[Data]

Anything that I ever do online, be this bash scripts, bat scripts or anything at all, is usually published under GPLv2, some works I do of a graphical design are usually under a creative commons share alike licence not for commercial use that permits remix as long as its attributed.

Most often with such resources online like reg files bat files, or even entire programs hosted on GitHub still no licence anywhere to be found, this usually means you shouldnt redistribute or modify code.

For me though there is a large difference between legal and moral, where in the respect of like minded people providing support for a product that like Microsoft is a wealthy and has resources to help its customers and it does poorly or like the subject here, stop supporting and bury heads in sand, this is morally wrong, and helping others in anyway possible is the right and decent thing to do.

Long story short, the law has no place dictating morality and companies like Microsoft should provide resources securely forever and in perpetuity because they can and allow people like you, Johnny and Fanny to carry on what they no longer provide.

So in conclusion, Im in favour of trusted 3rd party sources for such files that host resources to help communities like ours to do what they set out to do.

 

[Norton]

Just like prescription drugs, once the original manufacturer has recouped their investment for R&D then the same drug is open to the generics. The way MS operates now is they have no, or very little competition in the market.

 

[Data]

Here guys you should read this if not read already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware
Clear as mud , but has interesting insights...

Has anyone watched http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543312/ Halt and Catch Fire?

Edit: My post count = maximum speed of sex.

 

[davehc]

I think the point I was making was that it is not remotely possible to place a copyright on a method of circumventing irritants, such, for example the unwanted updating of hardware drivers.
Even in this thread, in the first post. This particular remedy is well posted around the web, in almost identical wording. Obviously if you, as I this example, are going to alter the registry, the critical nature would demand identical, or very similar wording. This does not, by any measure, indicate plagiarism, nor, in my view, is it necessary to refer to the many other contributors who have innocently used the same fix.