Naw... that is time spend updating and time spent undoing the mess the update caused combined. A More frequent updating regime? I figure I have to spend 72 hours per year, just so I can use it one hour a year. Yeah well, that won't work for me.
Naw... nothing wrong with the hardware, I guarantee it!

Maybe the manufacture made the wrong choice of matching up the components, I'll give you that. But they mostly do that anyway. And these are the so-called experts?
Great for you. My days of free beta testing is over. I am retired and I only run well tested software nowadays.
Which is obviously only half truth. Because individual use it could go either way. The way I use a computer, defragging does not benefit it. Plus others have noted they too don't benefit from such practices. While others claim they need to do so on a weekly bases.
Since Vista and newer, sure they do. As they setup a schedule from the start to routinely defrag your hard drives. And the only times my hard drive reaches critical temperatures is during updates and defragging.
How is the drive getting fragmented if you didn't change anything? It doesn't happen. It only happens when you create and delete files all of the time and those people benefit from defragmenting. And if you have plenty of disk space, Windows will automatically use the wide open space to write sequentially instead of filling in all the little spaces all over the place.
Yes well it is very popular on many budget machines since they save a few bucks. I say why bother?
Really? Well a group of us was trying to reduce Windows XP unnecessarily writing to the drive back in 2008. As SSD were a new thing back then and reducing the writes would increase their longevity. So I had an utility monitor and log all disk writes. And it was very shocking! XP at idle was still doing on average 4 to 6 writes per second. On a DOS machine, this would be zero per hour.
And in the course of the day, this would add up to like 6GB worth of writes that you don't even need. I'd call that extremely excessive since XP alone was that size. Since the goal was to reduce writes to the SSD down to nil, I had my work cutout. Got rid of the pagefile, stopped Windows from updating last access time stamps, etc. I got it down to like 400MB worth of writes per day.
And those I redirected all writes to a sandbox environment on a RAMDisk. So I achieved my goal of zero writes to the SSD per day under Windows XP. And man did that thing ran at lightning speeds. Plus it is now virus proof to boot. And I am sure Windows 10 even writes more excessively.
Naw... it normally has nothing to do with how you maintain your computer. It's the workload of the OS plus the workload of the applications. It's like matching the right engine for the car. Like it doesn't make
sense to
throw a VW bug engine in a limo, now does it? But manufactures do it all of the time and Microsoft still sells them Windows licenses.
Take my two Dell ST (tablets) for example. They put on Windows 7 and matched it up with an Atom Z670 processor. Sure it boots fast enough thanks to the Intel 128GB SSD. But my gawd man! You can't do anything for the first 15 minutes since the CPU is pegged at 100% all of that time. Sure I hacked away at the OS trying to reduce the CPU workload. But I only could do so much since the OS' core is really overwhelming for that kind of processor.
Oh I know. Because Windows is nosy and the Vizios doesn't wake up from sleep on the network unless you address them individually. I never used them with that computer and I can't think why I would want to either.
Yeah well most updates take a second or two. How would I know it wanted to reboot to install build 1903? The 20GB whopper that I'll just have to uninstall anyway.