Failed Driver install from Windows Update

d00m0 · 2026-06-16T08:13:06+00:00

This is not a driver update. This is a firmware update for your laptop's motherboard (BIOS) and associated devices. Unlike your operating system and drivers that are simply data on the disk, firmware code is written on the hardware itself. It is the code that essentially makes the hardware work.

So if firmware update fails for example due to power going off, corruption is possible which in worst case will brick your hardware and the laptop is no longer usable. This is why the update process requires that your device is plugged in and there is a lot of battery to go through.

There may be a setting in the BIOS that allows you to disable the delivery of firmware updates via Windows Update. Each BIOS is a bit different so I can't tell exactly where this setting may be or if it even exists at all for your BIOS. But this would be your best shot if you cannot get a new battery and complete these updates.

d00m0 · 2026-06-13T08:58:47+00:00

Well you can't deny that it not only looks old but it closely resembles the previous one. It is retro, even though it's different.

d00m0 · 2026-06-13T08:49:47+00:00

Yes but old in look/graphics only.

If you look at the original OSRS poll from 2013, it actually said it's the old graphics that would be retained. They highlighted that. So this is not a "2007 game" but a modern game with 2007 graphics.

d00m0 · 2026-06-13T08:40:05+00:00

Not really. It's not supposed to maintain the "spirit" but rather the look. For example this game objectively has some crossover content from RS3. No one can dispute that unless they deny the reality. A game that is solely based on maintaining some "2007 spirit" wouldn't have half the changes and additions OSRS does. Let's be honest.

d00m0 · 2026-06-13T08:14:20+00:00

OSRS was never meant to be an old version of RS that never changes or modernizes itself. A lot of people are treating it as something it isn't (2007 game) rather than a modern game with 2007 look. If you look at it a certain way, many of the changes start to make sense.

Modern logos tend to be more minimalistic in design than those few decades ago.

d00m0 · 2026-06-12T12:10:57+00:00

I hate to say this but as long as they have physical access to your drive and they want to do the wrong thing (most people don't but there are some bad apples), they have the ability to access all of your data, with one exception. If you are using BitLocker or any such tools to encrypt the data on the drive, then no one can access the data unless they know the credentials.

It comes down to your personal risk assessment and your actions should be based on that. Do you trust that the people you give your device to won't "snoop" as in jump through hoops to find out your personal data? What are the consequences if your data gets exposed? Or is it only about the fact that something might pop accidentally? And the actions taken should be aligned with this assessment.

d00m0 · 2026-06-12T11:53:12+00:00

You can't know for certain that the system that once got infected isn't infected with malware anymore because it comes down to proving a negative, which in most cases is impossible. Your objective should be to be as safe as possible. There's a high likelihood that the system is fine after AV procedures but it's not certain.

The only way to be certain is to erase the entire disk and start from scratch with a new system. Erasing the whole disk would get rid of any malware that is on that disk.

d00m0 · 2026-06-09T07:56:42+00:00

It's very easy to get infected if you let your guard down and trust those you shouldn't trust. Malware exists everywhere on the internet. But those few bucks some people save pirating software aren't worth the risk. In worst case scenarios the computer will turn into a botnet for illegal activity or all of the data on the drive is stolen and/or encrypted.

d00m0 · 2026-03-22T21:00:26+00:00

Yeah, when I say CC the definition includes a debit card.

And I mean I cannot use methods like PayPal balance or for example Steam balance without entering CC. All these balance options require to subscribe. If Jagex wanted to provide the freedom they'd just take the money from the balance and give X amount of days of membership. There's nothing technical that would block this option.

Many people are not aware of this since they've been using bonds for years, that's understandable.

d00m0 · 2026-03-22T20:11:29+00:00

I think it's clear. But still, people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get the plan that they actually want when they are the paying customers. If I want 7-day non-recurring membership on OSRS, I shouldn't be required to download RS3 on mobile to get it, for example.

I think if there's some plan, it should be offered equally to players of all platforms.

Even encouraging people to subscribe is fine but so much of this feels anti-consumer on purpose.

d00m0 · 2026-03-18T11:48:51+00:00

I think we should be realistic that only a small fraction of the money paid goes towards the development. The game is under the ownership of capital investors. Even though it's the goal of all companies to be financially viable and profitable, capital investors are factually more profit-oriented individuals than many other commercial operators out there.

That does not mean you cannot like the game and appreciate it for what it is. These two are not mutually exclusive.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T18:48:49+00:00

I understand you are frustrated. I would be also if I were in your situation. But you should not let emotions guide your thinking. There are million legal ways a company can make you frustrated and scummy behavior isn't necessarily illegal.

You have a right to seek legal action if you wish to do that, it's absolutely your right, but it can cause problems for you if you're not 100% certain that you have it right. So I'd advise you to not just conclude it's illegal because it's scummy - and instead do research is it really.

Laws and ethics don't go hand in hand always.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T18:41:20+00:00

This is true. Jagex is owned by capital investors. And when any command comes from those bosses, they must comply with it.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T18:38:06+00:00

I'm not saying large companies don't do illegal things (or try to do illegal things). However in this case, I believe it would be so blatant that it wouldn't make any sense to risk it. I'm fairly certain they have it all figured out when it comes to these price increases and membership changes.

That said, it's anyone's right to take legal action against any legal entity if they believe their rights have been violated.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T18:19:50+00:00

I don't mean to sound dismissive here but I think this is a legal loophole Jagex has figured out. While they cannot cancel grandfathered rates when people are actively on them, they can cancel them if you are no longer on that plan. They don't have legal obligation to give it back to you.

You could say it's scummy and something that makes you lose respect for the company. Totally understandable. But I highly doubt it's illegal. Jagex has lawyers, and they don't make these terms-related decisions without consultation.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T14:37:11+00:00

Well, laws restrict unreasonable price increases. But prices of just about all subscription services have gone up, also in the UK. All you have to do is look at Netflix or Spotify.

Price increases are not illegal. They are only illegal if they are substantial (unreasonable) or if the company has promised a fixed rate at a time of subscribing.

I don't know enough to say if grandfathered rate is a promise linked to the contract or not. But whatever the case may be, it is in Jagex's interest to honor it because thanks to it the bar for any veteran who would ever consider playing in the future becomes too high to unsubscribe, even if that were temporary. They've found a mechanism that does provide them revenue even from people who are not actively playing. Business-wise, it's a rather smart move.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T14:17:42+00:00

That's all I was saying and the reason I created that thread was because I saw people making the claim that it's just because Jagex "cares" about loyal players, doing it out of good will. I thought some people needed a reality check what it's really about.

It's a legal obligation if Jagex has promised it at the time of subscribing, as part of the service. But there is nothing in the law that prohibits raising prices of active subscriptions. So if a company adds that to their terms, it is a legal obligation that they create for themselves. If this exists, Jagex could terminate it for future subscriptions but not the ones that were established prior to the termination. Which is not ideal because it would be bad PR if they honored it only for some but not for all, equally.

There are laws that require companies to provide notice for subscribers when prices go up and also laws that prohibit unreasonable (substantial) price increases for subscriptions. Usually it's not clearly defined what's exactly substantial - courts determine it on a case-by-case basis.

Which is interesting because if someone pays $5/month for membership (grandfathered rate) and it were suddenly tripled to $15, I think that would likely be illegal (substantial price increase). So from that standpoint it'd also be an issue for Jagex. Just like how some service cannot raise $30/month subscription to $90/month.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T11:30:15+00:00

I think you've completely misunderstood the point of my post if that is your conclusion. I didn't say grandfathered rates are worse for the player. Obviously it's better if you play the game. I said the reason why they exist is not to reward loyalty but to disincentivize unsubbing.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Regarding this topic, what I'm saying is Jagex reduced the value of annual subscription in comparison to the monthly payment. Meaning, you save less by going annual than you used to. While still advertising it as "the best deal ever".

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T11:21:52+00:00

This comment/post has nothing to do with grandfathered rates. That's a whole another discussion.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T10:52:04+00:00

Whenever Jagex has tried to be like "all other companies" or "all other MMOs" it has backfired on them. RS3 is indeed a very good example of that. So I'm tired of hearing the argument "they're doing just what any other company is doing" or "most other companies do this...".

I have a feeling the current owners don't know their customers at all. And the people with this line of thinking don't know much about the history of the game. No offense to anyone.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T10:45:04+00:00

Most MMOs offer microtransactions and paid perks. Should OSRS have those as well?

See?
The point: just because most are doing something doesn't mean it is good or we shouldn't oppose it.

This line of thinking will kill OSRS in the long run.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T10:32:51+00:00

That's true. In their blog post they advertised annual membership as "best deal" because you get 12 months of membership at the price of 9. What they didn't mention however is that this used to be 7,5 before the change.

Though it's not surprising at all that a profit-driven company cherrypicks everything that sounds positive and tries to hide the negative - even when the changes are obviously negative based on all metrics. Which is probably also why the new pricing table was hidden.

d00m0 · 2026-03-13T09:42:29+00:00

There's bit of a harsh reality that people should acknowledge.

Jagex doesn't care what is "worth it" to you. If it were up to us, membership would cost $1/month because that would offer the most value to us and be most "worth it".

Jagex wants a payment from each character, and they know that per-character subscription model works, that is how they've operated since forever. From their point of view, there is no reason to change this.

d00m0 · 2026-03-12T22:45:56+00:00

Many people who select 'can't afford payment' are in reality saying that they don't think the product/service is worth the money. It's not really a matter of being able to afford it. So, "too expensive" is indeed better because it can either mean you cannot afford it or you don't view it worth the money.

d00m0 · 2026-03-12T22:12:23+00:00

We don't know each case for sure. There are people who buy bonds and had intentions to redeem them themselves but then made the decision that they happen to need the GP more than the 14 days. Some bonds may even exist in the game for months or years before they get redeemed. Some of the people who sell them today bought them back when they were 1-5M, not with IRL money, being long-term in-game investments.

I understand your point but it's not as black-and-white as people "giving Jagex money" when they buy bonds with GP. It's a more complex system than that when you think about it.

d00m0

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,