12 hours? Me thinks if you had kept a more frequent updating regime you would not be dealing with such a large and intrusive update.
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.
Also highly suspect you are dealing with degrading or poor performing hardware. But that is just a suspicion for I have no idea how many updates you were trying to work with.
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?
This year alone I’ve conducted 88 Windows updates on my main system. No idea how much time was invested, for they were all so short I did not find them to be problematic. When Windows prompts me for an update, if I am busy, I reschedule. If not, they are usually done by the time it takes me to go grab a drink and return to my desk. The large 20GB 1903 update that was pushed back in May took roughly 30 to 35 minutes, 25 minutes of which was just downloading it on a 100Mps connection.
Great for you. My days of free beta testing is over. I am retired and I only run well tested software nowadays.
There are many documented tests that prove performance degradation with fragmented hard discs.
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.
MS is not forcing anything, they are dealing with a known issue due to the design of mechanical hard discs.
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.
By using a fragmented disc you are also causing excessive wear – the actuator has to move more frequently to find the necessary data blocks. I have no idea which practice is more damaging, but suspect wear from both to be equal.
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.
As for Intel Optane – it speeds up communication between Disc, RAM and or CPU by caching the most common read/write processes. Updating a computer could very well overwrite such processes, therefore wipe the Optane cache forcing it to learn the common processes again. That is the downfall of using a cached Disc implementation and no OS can prevent this.
Yes well it is very popular on many budget machines since they save a few bucks. I say why bother?
I fail to see how Windows causes any more wear and tear than any other operating system. If mechanical hard discs are a common point of failure (which they are), all OS are susceptible. Every OS needs to read/write and do so constantly. Apple and Linux systems are not void of hardware failures and or degradation.
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.
Outside highly dependent CPU utilization software, excessive CPU use is down to how well you maintain your computer. As I type this, I currently have 92 Windows only processes loaded, combined they account for no more than ~0.5% CPU Utilization. In total I am running 238 processes according to Task Manager, CPU utilization does not exceed 5%. If you have unexpectedly high CPU usage, then you are either dealing with a buggy 3rd party software, which includes drivers, or a hardware fault.
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.
No explanation as to why your Vizio speakers wake up – perhaps that is by design. When updating, Windows is still connected to a network, therefore still sending packets that could wake up a client. All depends on what processes are started and or stopped. I’ve had network clients wake up during a reboot of a computer. If suspicious, perform a network trace.
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.
I also have a laptop that is rarely used, probably close to the frequency you are using your HP machine. I accept if it is not in use for a period of time I could be prompted for an update – as above I either deal with it at the time, or reschedule. Never have I had to deal with an update that took longer than 30 to 40 minutes, the majority of which is downloading large files should the update be of significant size. You can turn off updating should you choose – even manually initiate an update should you feel fit.
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.
