Softpedia ironically proves their story doesn't make any sense.
Microsoft’s Security Response Center revealed that most of the cyber-attacks aimed at Windows computers aren’t based on patched exploits, but on zero days.
Apparently it's hard to base your attack on an exploit which no longer works because relevant vulnerability is addressed by an installed patch. Journo behind the story believes it means patches are useless. This is, to put mildly, a very unorthodox logic.
Effective or not, forced updates give me a headache every time I have to use Windows. At this point I avoid it as much as I can, because I'm stuck in this very weird vicious circle where updates fail for whatever reason and then they have to be rolled back. I cannot finish a what would be a simple 5 minute task, but I'm forced to stare at my unusable computer for 1 hour. What a waste of time!
I always appreciate when I leave something open on my computer and step away for ten minutes to come back and see it restarted and installing updates. Not like I was in the middle of something or anything. It's really pushing me to switch completely to Linux.
Ummm, this headline makes no sense. They found a correlation between the rollout of forced patching and a decrease in exploits of patched vulnerabilities. This is the same logic that leads people to avoid measles vaccines because measles incidence dropped dramatically once everyone started getting the measles vaccine.