Yes it *is* the correct behavior, because the smart user will reboot, and, even given the lamentable state of your average router firmware, nothing malicious is likely to make it onto the user's network without being invited. The smart user will be careful what parts of the Web he visits, and, if he must visit that part of the Web, will treat every link as a live bomb, while the stupid user will go straight to
www.shadybootlegdownloads.com and click the "I'm a trojan, download me!" link. It is pretty much impossible to prevent the dumb user from trojaning if he has admin rights on his own machine, and not granting the end user admin rights on hardware he's bought and paid for is something that the smart user will view as compromising his machine as thoroughly as if he had gone and downloaded the trojan.
I'm going to use "computer savvy user" instead of "smart user" since there are quite a few people who may be smart but not know anything about computers.
The Pro SKU is the one aimed at computer savvy users. The Home SKU is aimed at the average computer user, who won't be computer savvy, and won't know what a botnet is until they're part of one, and won't know what ransomware (or bitcoin) is until they're being asked to pay bitcoins to unlock their own computer.
The average computer user will never intentionally check for updates, and they'll certainly never go look for updated drivers. They may never intentionally reboot the machine, instead just closing the lid of the laptop to "turn it off." If their machine is to stay up to date, the machine needs to do it itself.
Windows, being a mainstream OS, needs to cater to the majority average user. Computer savvy individuals can use the SKU intended for them, or if they're sufficiently computer savvy, they can easily remove the training wheels that keep the average user safe.
The whole idea that a user will want to trick their operating system into doing something they want points to some deep flaw in the design. The first point being, why do they even need to resort to tricks instead of just issuing commands? Something is very wrong here and I'm genuinely scared of the direction this is going.
Because the average user doesn't know how to take care of their computer, as already said.
...which is not a problem of the OS or its vendor.
It absolutely is. Who do those users blame? If the OS can solve the problem for the majority of users, why shouldn't they?
TBH, in my opinion a majority of the problems with the users now stem from this expectation that the computer will think for them. Users should be provided tools to protect themselves from malware, but not be forced to use them because they might have a good reason. If they don't use them and lose all their data to ransomware, well, that's a lesson for them. It doesn't mean that the OS was at fault, unless there were actually no tools for ensuring security.
If the users are shielded from the consequences of their choices, they will never learn.
Except that's kind of the situation we have now--users are provided with the countermeasures
by default that will work in the vast majority of cases. If somebody wants to disable the countermeasures and shoot themselves in the foot, they can do that. It just helps ensure that users who aren't computer savvy don't shoot themselves in the foot accidentally.
This is an OS war thread, so don't hate me for taking this shot Heilor because all is fair in war: But if I remember correctly, you worked or work at Microsoft and I think that's why you are inclined to defend Windows 10 so strongly. Why else would you defend the active hours thing, it's totally nuts!
My employment at Microsoft is largely irrelevant to my frequent enjoyment of playing devil's advocate; one need look no further than the Trump thread for that. I don't post here in any official capacity, although that could be quite a nice gig...
Active hours are an imperfect solution to a complicated problem which isn't as simple as "just allow users to defer updates indefinitely." The situation improved in more recent builds, but it's still imperfect, and there is a significant amount of feedback to that effect both internally and externally.
I'm not on the team responsible for this feature, so my personal opinion is largely irrelevant. I have contributed to the feedback and encourage you to do the same via the Feedback Hub app.
It doesn't matter who the OS was designed for, keeping your OS running when the user wants it to stay running instead of rebooting seems like a basic feature that any user that has dished out money for the OS should be entitled to. I don't want to have to fight with my computer and schedule my things around the OS rather than the other way around. Computers exist to serve me, not the other way around! My active hours are 24/7.
You never sleep? Teach me!
As a computer savvy user, you shouldn't have any trouble working around the issue.
I get that certain versions of Windows come with additional features that power users may find appealing. Keeping my computer running when I want it to stay running is not a feature specific to power users, it's a basic feature of the OS.
24/7 uptime sounds kind of like a "professional" feature to me
Training a Haar-like features classifier cascade; mine typically require 15 hours of processing at least. Running a solar system integration in ORSA; rendering time depends on the desired number of objects to be simulated and the length of the simulation, but again there have been cases where I've needed to run it for more than a day to get the result. Of course all of this could be done in Linux, but I don't feel like I should have buy a pro version of Windows just to keep it from forcefully rebooting when I happen to be doing one of these tasks overnight in windows.
These all sound like the sort of things that one wouldn't expect to be doing as an average "home" user.