BSOD - ntoskrnl.exe+9e20f

Was playing Far Cry 5 a few months ago and got a BSOD just ignored it and didn't happen again for a while, playing Monster Hunter and recieved another one, computer just froze including sound, rebooted after a few seconds, Blue Screen View shows this; ntoskrnl.exe+9e20f.

Bought my PC from PCSpecialist back in April and no problems at all, just a little worried now since I've had two Blue Screens, got temperature monitoring software running and temps are about 50-65 most of the time during gaming.

8700k OC to 4.8, 1080ti and 16GB Corsair vengeance DDR4 3200MHz.

EDIT:

IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

ntoskrnl.exe+198560

0x0000000a

Just found a bit more info, anyone that could offer any kind of help would be appreciated.

EDIT 2:

Just did a Windows Memory Diagnostic, left it for a bit and no errors or anything after I come back and it rebooted, on Google all I can see is posts about ram being the problem but I haven't got it doing anything else other than gaming.

That BSOD is almost always a driver. Drivers run in the kernel which is why you see ntoskrnl.exe as the failing module - that's the kernel (or most of it anyway). Since the BSOD happens in games the most likely culprit is your graphics driver. Check whether there is an updated driver for your 1080ti from the Nvidia website, it might also be worth checking for an updated Intel GPU (that's still used even when running on the Nvidia card).

Since this first happened a while ago, and you bought the PC in April (so it was probably running the Fall Creator's Edition of Windows 10), has there been an in-place upgrade of Windows 10 to the latest Edition (April 2018) since you've had it? In-place upgrades can cause all sorts of niggly issues.

ubuysa said:

That BSOD is almost always a driver. Drivers run in the kernel which is why you see ntoskrnl.exe as the failing module - that's the kernel (or most of it anyway). Since the BSOD happens in games the most likely culprit is your graphics driver. Check whether there is an updated driver for your 1080ti from the Nvidia website, it might also be worth checking for an updated Intel GPU (that's still used even when running on the Nvidia card).

Since this first happened a while ago, and you bought the PC in April (so it was probably running the Fall Creator's Edition of Windows 10), has there been an in-place upgrade of Windows 10 to the latest Edition (April 2018) since you've had it? In-place upgrades can cause all sorts of niggly issues.

Click to expand...

I'm running nvidia driver 398.36 as it helps a lot with Monster Hunter since the actual Monster Hunter driver reduces FPS and increases CPU usage, I'll update my intel driver but I do have it disabled in Bios, as for in-place upgrades, I'm not sure I understand, I got the latest 1803 and check for updates once a week since I have them paused in-between.

EDIT: In-place upgrades, I just Googled that, I'm reading thats going from a previous version of Windows, say 7 to 10? In that case thats a no, I ordered Windows 10 with my PC.

EDIT: Okay, downloading an updated Intel VGA driver from the Gigabyte website from my motherboards support page, I'll try that.

EDIT: Okay so apparently my computer doesn't meet the requirements to install the intel VGA driver, probably since its disabled.

Mashril said:

I'm running nvidia driver 398.36 as it helps a lot with Monster Hunter since the actual Monster Hunter driver reduces FPS and increases CPU usage, I'll update my intel driver but I do have it disabled in Bios, as for in-place upgrades, I'm not sure I understand, I got the latest 1803 and check for updates once a week since I have them paused in-between.

EDIT: In-place upgrades, I just Googled that, I'm reading thats going from a previous version of Windows, say 7 to 10? In that case thats a no, I ordered Windows 10 with my PC.

EDIT: Okay, downloading an updated Intel VGA driver from the Gigabyte website from my motherboards support page, I'll try that.

EDIT: Okay so apparently my computer doesn't meet the requirements to install the intel VGA driver, probably since its disabled.

Click to expand...

Since you've had it, did you install any major windows version updates or was it on the latest already? Did you apply them over the top or install as new installation?

SpyderTracks said:

Since you've had it, did you install any major windows version updates or was it on the latest already? Did you apply them over the top or install as new installation?

Click to expand...

I went from the Fall Creators to 1803, if thats what you mean.

Mashril said:

I went from the Fall Creators to 1803, if thats what you mean.

Click to expand...

In place upgrades can cause major issues with stability and stuttering.

I'd suggest a reinstall from scratch. Usually clears issues like this. Tying down the offending driver can be a pain, a reinstall is a simple and quick solution.

SpyderTracks said:

In place upgrades can cause major issues with stability and stuttering.

I'd suggest a reinstall from scratch. Usually clears issues like this. Tying down the offending driver can be a pain, a reinstall is a simple and quick solution.

Click to expand...

I was thinking that's where you were going, I've started to download Windows 10 to a USB stick already, I'll reinstall it sometime this week or next weekend and see what happens.

Mashril said:

I was thinking that's where you were going, I've started to download Windows 10 to a USB stick already, I'll reinstall it sometime this week or next weekend and see what happens.

Click to expand...

Let us know how you get on.

SpyderTracks said:

Let us know how you get on.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the help anyway, I hope this gets it sorted, terrible feeling to be playing now not knowing when it could happen again, I'll report back in a week or so when I get around to reinstalling 10 and just hope I never get this again.

SpyderTracks has answered these already but just for completeness...

Mashril said:

I'm running nvidia driver 398.36 as it helps a lot with Monster Hunter since the actual Monster Hunter driver reduces FPS and increases CPU usage, I'll update my intel driver but I do have it disabled in Bios, as for in-place upgrades, I'm not sure I understand, I got the latest 1803 and check for updates once a week since I have them paused in-between.

EDIT: In-place upgrades, I just Googled that, I'm reading thats going from a previous version of Windows, say 7 to 10? In that case thats a no, I ordered Windows 10 with my PC.

Click to expand...

The 'in-place upgrade' I was asking about is when you went from version 1709 (Fall Creator's) to version 1803 (April 2018). If you allow WIndows Update to do that upgrade it's called an in-place upgrade. Although in-place upgrades of Windows 10 work fine for most people it is very well known to cause niggly issues for many others and this could well be the source of your BSOD problems. The only solution is a clean install of WIndows 10 (1803) from bootable installation media.

EDIT: Okay, downloading an updated Intel VGA driver from the Gigabyte website from my motherboards support page, I'll try that.

EDIT: Okay so apparently my computer doesn't meet the requirements to install the intel VGA driver, probably since its disabled.

Click to expand...

Ok, I wondered whether that might have been the case, it was worth a check though.

A clean install should sort out your problems, and for the future when Windows Update tells you there is a new upgrade version of Windows available I'd suggest you use the Media Creation Tool to download installation media for that new version and upgrade by clean installing. That's what I always do and I've never had any issues.

Just to update the situation, I haven't had time to do a reinstall yet, but I recieved another BSOD last night again in game, ntoskrnl.exe as the culprit, I was going to check my minidump when I got home but for some reason its disappeared. I've got plans to reinstall Windows 10 this weekend and get all my updated drivers from my motherboard website.

Mashril said:

Just to update the situation, I haven't had time to do a reinstall yet, but I recieved another BSOD last night again in game, ntoskrnl.exe as the culprit, I was going to check my minidump when I got home but for some reason its disappeared. I've got plans to reinstall Windows 10 this weekend and get all my updated drivers from my motherboard website.

Click to expand...

Let us know how things go.

Make sure you do a clean install, delete all existing system partitions and create a new one the size of the unallocated space (extra partitions will be created, especially if you are UEFI based. It would be wise, once Windows, updates, and all the drivers are installed, to see whether you can get it to BSOD without installing additional software or making any configuration changes. In its 'newly' installed state you have the most stable software platform possible, so if it does BSOD in that state it's almost certainly a hardware issue.

When you do come to reinstall your third party software and games try and go slowly, testing the PC after each install to see whether the BSODs are related to any particular piece of software.

This is a tedious process I know, and all you really want is to get back working again, but time spent after a completely clean install in order to eliminate software as the cause is time well spent.

I've only been back to using Windows recently but my strategy to keeping it running stably (with a good backup solution before making major changes to the system) is:
* Install all drivers that you need as given in the DVD.
* Disable Windows Update completely (whilst still keeping Windows Defender definition up-to-date, it's a single Group Policy change).
* Only update Windows using the Windows installation image e.g., I'm on 1803, I will update to 1809 possibly several months after it would be deemed stable using a bootable USB drive only.

There are several reasons for this:
* The Windows installation image is the one that always received the highest amount of testing compared to all other updates, therefore skipping all intermediary updates i.e., from one official release to the next lets you skip all the updates that have not been sufficiently tested.
* The drivers that come with the DVD are the one that received the highest amount of testing compared to all updated drivers that you get from either Microsoft or the manufacturer's web site.

Of course, if you know a new update fixes a particular issue that you're having, it would make sense to consider updating but often it is worth living with a known devil. With software new bugs tend to come with new features due to inadequate testing.

fnf said:

I've only been back to using Windows recently but my strategy to keeping it running stably (with a good backup solution before making major changes to the system) is:
* Install all drivers that you need as given in the DVD.
* Disable Windows Update completely (whilst still keeping Windows Defender definition up-to-date, it's a single Group Policy change).
* Only update Windows using the Windows installation image e.g., I'm on 1803, I will update to 1809 possibly several months after it would be deemed stable using a bootable USB drive only.

There are several reasons for this:
* The Windows installation image is the one that always received the highest amount of testing compared to all other updates, therefore skipping all intermediary updates i.e., from one official release to the next lets you skip all the updates that have not been sufficiently tested.
* The drivers that come with the DVD are the one that received the highest amount of testing compared to all updated drivers that you get from either Microsoft or the manufacturer's web site.

Of course, if you know a new update fixes a particular issue that you're having, it would make sense to consider updating but often it is worth living with a known devil. With software new bugs tend to come with new features due to inadequate testing.

Click to expand...

All due respect but I would highly advise against doing this! The updates are put out for a seriously good reason, every 2 weeks there is a security update and they often protect against zero day vulnerabilities.

Feature upgrades also contain important updates. Turning off updates has been a big old NO NO since windows xp days, you just leave yourself open to nasty virus's and malware.

Not updating leads to the problems caused by wannacry and other super virus'.

Also, it's usually the feature upgrades that have the bugs, not the incremental updates.

fnf said:

I've only been back to using Windows recently but my strategy to keeping it running stably (with a good backup solution before making major changes to the system) is:
* Install all drivers that you need as given in the DVD.
* Disable Windows Update completely (whilst still keeping Windows Defender definition up-to-date, it's a single Group Policy change).
* Only update Windows using the Windows installation image e.g., I'm on 1803, I will update to 1809 possibly several months after it would be deemed stable using a bootable USB drive only.

There are several reasons for this:
* The Windows installation image is the one that always received the highest amount of testing compared to all other updates, therefore skipping all intermediary updates i.e., from one official release to the next lets you skip all the updates that have not been sufficiently tested.
* The drivers that come with the DVD are the one that received the highest amount of testing compared to all updated drivers that you get from either Microsoft or the manufacturer's web site.

Of course, if you know a new update fixes a particular issue that you're having, it would make sense to consider updating but often it is worth living with a known devil. With software new bugs tend to come with new features due to inadequate testing.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is dreadfully bad advice.

Most Windows updates are security fixes and by not installing them you leave yourself open to malware. Other updates offer performance updates, security mitigations, and bug fixes. There is simply no good reason to not install updates and your system is NOT safer nor more stable for doing so.

In addition, if you check the End User License Agreement you accepted on installing Windows, you'll find that you are required to accept all updates that Microsoft issue. You can find the EULA in C;\Windows\System32|license.rtf, check item 6.

@SpyderTracks, @ubuysa: you are absolutely right, I forgot to leave that big caveat in there: that doing so one will be exchanging stability for security which boils down to:
* Not running untrusted software without proper protections e.g., running in a VM or inside a sandbox.
* Not opening untrusted data without proper protections.
* Having a backup plan in place (as I already mentioned)

Having said that, it is not uncommon for updates to break systems in a subtle manner that are sometimes irreversible. Among the consumer operation systems, Windows & Mac OS are unfortunately very vulnerable in this regards: updates to system files are unmanaged unlike most Linux distributions with a good package manager. In other words, many system updates have side effects.

There is a good reason why servers are often many months, or years behind in terms of feature updates. As a compromise, I would be happy to install security fixes only, unfortunately there is no way to enable having just security updates to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As a normal user, one therefore has a choice of siding with stability (at the cost of having to be extra vigilant) or security (and accept that the system will gradually exhibit weird behaviours). I went with the former but I appreciate that most people probably care a lot more about not being infected with malware to the occasional system crashes.

fnf said:

@SpyderTracks, @ubuysa: you are absolutely right, I forgot to leave that big caveat in there: that doing so one will be exchanging stability for security which boils down to:
* Not running untrusted software without proper protections e.g., running in a VM or inside a sandbox.
* Not opening untrusted data without proper protections.
* Having a backup plan in place (as I already mentioned)

Click to expand...

Not installing updates doesn't make your system more stable, many Windows updates are to fix stability issues! In any case, as I mentioned, it is a breach of the EULA to disable updates and we're not permitted to discuss any activities on here which are illegal.

Having said that, it is not uncommon for updates to break systems in a subtle manner that are sometimes irreversible.

Click to expand...

Not true. At least not true here. I've been using Windows since the very start and I've never had my system 'broken' by a Windows update. Yes there has been the odd glitch and in these cases I follow Microsoft's advice to either leave the update installed and wait for the fix or back the update out. The software belongs to Microsoft, we just have a license to use it, so it is impossible for us to know better than Microsoft whether updates should be installed or backed out.

Upgrading in place has always been a bit of a lottery (and still is) but upgrading is very different from updating. I always do a clean install of each and every upgrade.

You are quite right about backups though, I take a nightly image of my system drive on a schedule (and keep the last 14 images) so in the event of a problem I can easily go back to a working system.

Among the consumer operation systems, Windows & Mac OS are unfortunately very vulnerable in this regards: updates to system files are unmanaged unlike most Linux distributions with a good package manager. In other words, many system updates have side effects.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for MACs because I've never had one, but this statement in respect of Windows is plain wrong. Windows doesn't have a 'package manager' because it doesn't need one, Windows updates are all supplied in binary format whereas many (most?) Linux updates are supplied as source and must be compiled on the destination platform.

This idea that Windows updates are somehow suspect is a myth. I suspect the source of this myth is that most people don't manage their systems at all well (or at all in many cases). In addition lots of people get suckered in to running 'tune-up' tools, registry cleaners, RAM accelerators (now they really ARE snake oil) and the like, none of which do any good and often do real harm. There are countless websites offering truly appalling advice that people follow without thinking - and then they blame Microsoft for the resulting problems. In my experience the major cause of problems when updating is down to the user not managing their system wisely.

There is a good reason why servers are often many months, or years behind in terms of feature updates. As a compromise, I would be happy to install security fixes only, unfortunately there is no way to enable having just security updates to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

On your second point, the EULA, under which terms you run the software, requires you to accept any and all updates. In any case, by suggesting that you are able to pick and choose which updates to install means that you think you know more about how Windows works and what any given update is doing than Microsoft do.

On your first point I've been in that position, commercial applications cannot be allowed to fail at all which means any system change (whether OS update or in-house modification) has to be tested, preferably on stand-alone systems, and this takes time and money - time that hard pressed sysadmins often don't have and money which the organisation is reluctant to spend. This has nothing to do with the quality of the Windows updates, it's more to do with companies not funding their IT departments well enough to do the proper testing.

As a normal user, one therefore has a choice of siding with stability (at the cost of having to be extra vigilant) or security (and accept that the system will gradually exhibit weird behaviours). I went with the former but I appreciate that most people probably care a lot more about not being infected with malware to the occasional system crashes.

Click to expand...

Nope. All Windows users are subject to the terms of the EULA, so you have two choices; accept all updates or stop running the software. Here's the relevant section from the EULA...

6. Updates. The software periodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice.

Click to expand...

There is simply no situation, either legally nor technically, under which not installing Windows updates makes sense.

ubuysa said:

Not installing updates doesn't make your system more stable, many Windows updates are to fix stability issues! In any case, as I mentioned, it is a breach of the EULA to disable updates and we're not permitted to discuss any activities on here which are illegal.

Click to expand...

I don't think that clause is enforceable anyhow, but that is besides the point. I was giving an advice for keeping the system running stably on Windows, which is unfortunately not as straight-forward as simply keeping everything up-to-date as much as everyone (including myself) wants it to be the case.

ubuysa said:

Not true. At least not true here. I've been using Windows since the very start and I've never had my system 'broken' by a Windows update. Yes there has been the odd glitch and in these cases I follow Microsoft's advice to either leave the update installed and wait for the fix or back the update out. The software belongs to Microsoft, we just have a license to use it, so it is impossible for us to know better than Microsoft whether updates should be installed or backed out.

Upgrading in place has always been a bit of a lottery (and still is) but upgrading is very different from updating. I always do a clean install of each and every upgrade.

Click to expand...

This demonstrates my point perfectly: technically there is no difference between updating and upgrading, the only difference is in the number of packages that are installed.

If updates are properly managed and are completely reversible, installing a set of Windows updates to turn e.g., a new installation of Windows 10 1709 to 1803 vs. installing Windows 10 1803 from scratch would result in functionally-identical installations but we know that that is not the case. It is the case for most package-managed Linux distributions (not all of them are package-managed but most are).

Each update is a set of binaries, data files and metadata that not only replaces the existing binaries on the system but executes a number of steps that might differ from system to system. It is this complex combination of conditional steps that makes upgrading so tricky to get right. A clean installation avoids that problem by reducing the system to a known (and mostly tested) state.

Another reason why Windows updates cannot simply be reversed cleanly is that there is no system-wide dependency management for those updates. If you back out of a single update, you might unknowingly break some other system components that depend on this update. Consequently the affected system components also need to be downgraded but they aren't. The same problem happens if you selectively apply updates.
We do know that Microsoft takes backward compatibility very seriously so most of the time this lack of dependency management isn't a problem, but that is mainly because they do spend a huge effort making sure that updates work (by the "executes a number of steps that might differ from system to system" bit that I mentioned above).

Mac OS suffers from the same issue to a lesser degrees because the number of foreign packages that mess about with the system are much lower, but the fundamental lack of dependency management is there.

Most Linux distributions rely on the package manager to ensure that a clean installation vs. an upgraded system result in functionally-identical installations. My Arch Linux system was installed 8 years ago. It is up-to-date and still works today despite the numerous updates.

ubuysa said:

You are quite right about backups though, I take a nightly image of my system drive on a schedule (and keep the last 14 images) so in the event of a problem I can easily go back to a working system.

Click to expand...

That is a good plan, if not for the mini-breakages introduced by certain Windows update here and there I would have been content with keeping it up-to-date, knowing that I can always revert. But why do we have to accept this risk?.

Case in point, devicecensus.exe had been crashing for me after a certain recent updates in Windows 1803. It has been a problem for many users for over 2 months now: https://www.google.com/search?q=win...e+crash&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab . That is a minor annoyance to most users but coming from Linux, I get nervous about a broken Windows system precisely because I don't know how to fix it and don't want to spend many hours tracking down the culprit.

Assuming that you have found the culprit and have managed to revert the offending update, 2 things could happen (I do not know which will because I haven't done this):
* The offending update will be kept uninstalled. This leads to potential breakages in the future where certain updates might depend on it. It might work (I'll refer to the "executes a number of steps that might differ from system to system" bit above), or might not.
* The offending update will be installed along with the next set of Windows updates. In which case you'll need to keep it reverted.
I suspect that #1 is the case, which precisely is what will lead to a gradually broken system over time.

ubuysa said:

I can't speak for MACs because I've never had one, but this statement in respect of Windows is plain wrong. Windows doesn't have a 'package manager' because it doesn't need one, Windows updates are all supplied in binary format whereas many (most?) Linux updates are supplied as source and must be compiled on the destination platform.

Click to expand...

It's not quite true. The vast majority of Linux distributions are package-managed in binary forms and they do a good job at it. Windows and Mac OS don't have one and the lack of which shows why updates are so problematic to deal with on these systems.

I'm not saying that Linux updates are always perfect, my point is that if your system is broken due to the latest updates it is safe to revert the offending update. The package manager will ensure that if and when other system components rely on the outdated component, you will be informed and make a choice to:
* Keep the rest of the components with that dependency outdated as well
* Upgrade everything
There is no such transparency and knowledge on Windows and Mac OS.

ubuysa said:

This idea that Windows updates are somehow suspect is a myth. I suspect the source of this myth is that most people don't manage their systems at all well (or at all in many cases). In addition lots of people get suckered in to running 'tune-up' tools, registry cleaners, RAM accelerators (now they really ARE snake oil) and the like, none of which do any good and often do real harm. There are countless websites offering truly appalling advice that people follow without thinking - and then they blame Microsoft for the resulting problems. In my experience the major cause of problems when updating is down to the user not managing their system wisely.

Click to expand...

It is not a myth, you also pointed out that Windows system upgrades are a lottery, but they work perfectly fine on Linux because of the package manager.

ubuysa said:

On your second point, the EULA, under which terms you run the software, requires you to accept any and all updates. In any case, by suggesting that you are able to pick and choose which updates to install means that you think you know more about how Windows works and what any given update is doing than Microsoft do.

Click to expand...

I never said that, I was suggesting to not install any interim Windows updates at all except for the Windows defender definition. I also said that I would happily install just security updates if that is an option, but it is not to my knowledge.

The 'odd glitches' that you mentioned might be important to some people and to me it is worth being extra vigilant about what I'm running/opening on the system than spending hours every month investigating what the latest update will break.

ubuysa said:

On your first point I've been in that position, commercial applications cannot be allowed to fail at all which means any system change (whether OS update or in-house modification) has to be tested, preferably on stand-alone systems, and this takes time and money - time that hard pressed sysadmins often don't have and money which the organisation is reluctant to spend. This has nothing to do with the quality of the Windows updates, it's more to do with companies not funding their IT departments well enough to do the proper testing.

Click to expand...

It is the lack of testing that prevents businesses from simply upgrading the system. It is the same for me (and probably most people), we simply don't have the time to beta-test Microsoft software. Therefore one would need to either side with stability or security.

I should emphasise that I always keep my Linux system up-to-date, not because that I'm worried about security but because I can upgrade with the knowledge that they will not break my system.

ubuysa said:

Nope. All Windows users are subject to the terms of the EULA, so you have two choices; accept all updates or stop running the software. Here's the relevant section from the EULA...



There is simply no situation, either legally nor technically, under which not installing Windows updates makes sense.

Click to expand...

It is up to the end user to decide what to do with their system. Microsoft doesn't have any legal foothold here if they cannot provide a working system following updates. But again, I was here to give an advice how to keep a Windows system running stably and don't mind much whether other people follow that or not. As I mentioned above this is an unfortunate compromise that we have to deal with on Windows & Mac OS.

I really don't know where to start. I alsodon't know why you suddenly want to compare Windows with Linux. I took issue with your claim that not installing Windows updates is a good thing, and I still take issue with it. Part of your confusion above comes from not appreciating the difference between an update and an upgrade, they are functionally two quite different things, they just both happen to be delivered by the Windows Update tool.

I have agreed that using the Windows Update tool to install an upgrade is not wise (and I regularly recommend a clean install), but we're not talking about upgrades, we're talking about updates.

There are simply no circumstances in which not installing Windows updates is a good thing. And just because you don't think an EULA clause can be enforced that doesn't make it invalid.

ubuysa said:

Part of your confusion above comes from not appreciating the difference between an update and an upgrade, they are functionally two quite different things, they just both happen to be delivered by the Windows Update tool.

Click to expand...

I think that is the fundamental disagreement between us. There should be nothing special about system upgrades i.e, going from 1709 to 1803. As far as Windows is concerned you'll be installing an update like any other, with changes to binary blobs, configuration files and other data. All of which must be reversible cleanly.

The fact that Microsoft lets user upgrade to a new feature release but you chose not to do so indicates that you do not trust that Microsoft can provide updates to a system that won't break it. There is no technical guarantee that a normal Windows update will not break the system any less than a Windows upgrade. The risk increases exponentially typically by the amount of code changes i.e., the small updates have less, but not zero risk.

I've already given you an example (devicecensus.exe) of how an update will break the system, even from a clean state. I do not use third-party tuning software or the likes, yet a clean Windows installation followed by installing the latest updates broke this.

Another example, although I didn't directly experience this: one of the updates in January 2018 in an attempt to mitigate the Spectre/Meltdown issue rendered many systems unbootable. It was due to a 3rd-party antivirus software. Microsoft subsequently introduced a patch that will prevent the system from ever receiving this fix until you set a registry entry. This article might be relevant: https://www.zdnet.com/article/windo...check-if-your-av-is-blocking-microsoft-patch/ .

Indeed, this was due to a third-party software but I want to *heavily* emphasise that it happens because Windows does not have a proper package/dependency management system. All changes to the system (whether they come from Windows update/upgrades, drivers or installing/running 3rd-party software) are permanent and some of them are irreversible. With a package manager you'll be informed of when/how an update might introduce incompatibilities e.g., due to a system file having been replaced with an unexpected version by more than 1 packages.

The reason I keep bringing up Linux is because most Linux distros are package-managed and downgrading will bring the system back to the previous state cleanly. With Windows & Mac OS you cannot be certain that downgrading will do the same. I have moved back to Windows after 13 years of using Linux due to the lack of native software that I need so I'm fully aware of its limitations and am prepared to deal with other disadvantages of using Windows (namely security & stability).

I hope I've made myself clear that I choose to disallow interim Windows updates completely because I want to avoid both the hassle of the occasional breakages (hours of investigation) and the complete reinstallation of the system every 6-18 months (that typically takes me at least 1 week).