But are they doing silent updates? Any update that requires a reboot is not silent, and as far as I can see there's been no progress in silent updating since Windows 7. It is definitely possible to patch vulnerabilities in memory without rebooting my computer; heck, most malware will silently patch the vulnerability it used as part of the infection process; Microsoft just can't be bothered to do it themselves.
That's true; however Chrome restarts in a couple of seconds and restores most of your state. Also, all of the work of installing the update is done before it prompts you to do anything. None of that is true for Windows.
When you have 1.6 billion users, every time you waste 5 minutes of their time installing updates and rebooting, that wastes 190 human lifetimes worth of man-hours. I know that Microsoft does not properly account for this when deciding how much effort to allocate to making updates less intrusive.
Most people will not stare at the screen for 5 minutes while it's updating. They will be doing non-computer tasks in the meantime. Also, this ignores the ability for the updates to be postponed[1] until a convenient time (at lunch?, after work?), which means the lost productivity is reduced to the time it takes to restore the workspace.
[1] Even with windows 10's forced updates, I still think it's possible to postpone updates, just not indefinitely.
This is the wrong objection. If only 10% of users lose 5 minutes each, that's... 19 lifetimes' worth of man-hours, which is still excessive. The real reason for not doing rebootless updates is that they're hard to implement, and hard to implement in such a way that they create a risk of problems much bigger than losing 5 minutes (like data loss or security vulns staying open).
But these are not actual lifetimes. You can't kill people by updating a billion computers for the same reason you can't have a baby in one month with 9 women.
