So because an update went wrong 12 years ago it is better to live in a malware infested environment. Part of the reason that that XP SP was so bad was because of how many games did horrendeous unsupported things in the OS, especially around security. very few people have real trouble with updates anymore and the vast majority are much better off having updates pushed as you have a heap that don't know any better, then another large gorup that think they know better but a WRONG. Then a tiny fraction of a percent that actually legitmately need to control these updates. The biggest thing that breaks updates is when someone has malware installed and in that instance you are better off getting broken so you actually do something about it.

You have a good point, I checked and I'm 125 updates behind. Last updated in September. 1.3 GB of updates to download.

I don't mind the auto downloading and installing, however I can't stand the forced or automatic reboots, which is why I turned it off. When I leave my laptop at night I expect everything to be there in the morning, exactly the way I left it. Put a non invasive reminder on the task bar and I'll reboot when it's convenient for me. Or make it so that Windows puts everything back the way it was before the reboot. (That would be cool, yet a nightmare to implement I imagine)

Not sure what you want?  even if you could decide which update you want to install, you wouldn't know that it bricks your particular system until you have installed it.

The only real complaint you have seems to be with the reboots.  If that seems to be a particular issue for you, stick with linux or Win7.  Just don't get a smartphone or a PS4 or XB1.  All of those devices have mandatory upodates and reboots.  

That's just one example the have been other issues throughout the years hence why people like the option to wait, not a hard thing to grasp.

It is a VERY hard thing to grasp. There are very few modern day examples of patches causing wide spread system failures, but there are endless lists of widespread system compromises because of people that decide they don't need to patch or are better off waiting without understanding the consequences. It is like the anti Vaxxers, it is a poor decision for the vast majority of the population.

It's only hard if you want it to be, even something as simple as 2+2 can be hard for someone who refuses to understand, simple logic is some people want to be safe beforehand to see if new updates don't conflict with their hardware or any software and the past is the reason why.

Consoles exist to be a consistent and standardised system so that developers can be confident about what system they're making the product for. Updates are generally required to play certain software, and generally seek to increase functionality. And console autoupdating can always be disabled (unless MS have done something with the One that I'm not aware of) if the user doesn't want it to happen.

PCs (not counting Mac, where standardisation is expected) exist to provide users with choice, with certain standard libraries used to ensure compatibility for most products. Users want their systems to be highly configurable. Having the option to have automatic updates is good... but it should be an option.

Especially since updates can get quite large, and many people have quite limited internet quotas (I don't know if that's common in America, but in Australia, quotas are common and can be quite restrictive for some). Being unable to use your internet on your PC because, if you connect, Windows will download large updates without your permission, immediately eating up your quota that you had hoped to use, could be a huge problem.

Personally, I dual boot Windows and Xubuntu... and only rarely use Windows, where necessary. If I have to go through a huge download of updates every time I boot up Windows, I'm just not going to use Windows at all (I'll put up with not having access to certain programs/games).

And by the way, what did you think the big uproar pre-release regarding the Xbox One was? People like the idea of having the choice for streamlining. They severely dislike having any alternative option taken away, especially when it causes problems for them. Whether it's requiring online even for offline functionality, or forcing updates when connecting online, it's wrong.

yep and that very behaviour is what makes malware spread so easily. malware writers rely on people like yourself that are slow at patching, they don't need to discover new vulnerabilities, they just reverse engineer the patch and they have a way to compromise a large volume of users that thinks they know better and can wait for a few days or a few weeks or what usually happens they never get aorund to doing it at all until something happens. You are far more likely to have issues from not patching than patching.

Funny how I haven't had malware in over a decade yet my friend who updates frequently had some last year.

You're exaggerating too. You don't get infected right away if you miss a few patches. I'm up to date again, it took 6 hours to download the 125 patches I was behind, plus a 15 minute 'restarting' sequence afterwards. It still works, looks the same, and according to windows defender my laptop is still fine.
Well almost up to date, apparently it skipped 7, more to update. Now it hangs on preparing to install, I guess it will work eventually.

That's another reason I turned off auto updates. I'm trying to edit videos and the hdd becomes extremely busy from auto updates. At least that was my experience in windows 7. With 3 or 4 updates a week that's just too much nuisance. Since I don't use the pc that much, yet do want to move it around, everytime I shut it down or turned it back on it had to finish installing updates, making a simple move take forever.
Just put a gentle reminder on the taskbar, that's all I want.