[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]hang on, it will "will improve the user interface for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008" yet it will not "change the look and feel of Automatic Updates" ???WTF?[/citation]
Ya, I'm a little confused here. So what exactly is being changed about this?
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]Ya, I'm a little confused here. So what exactly is being changed about this?[/citation]
So manual updates will give more information, however if you choose Automatic Updates it just runs in the background like it normally would!
They say it like they're hiding something in this update, stuff like this is why I switched to Linux, if you distrust Linux, you can just review the source-code and compile it yourself... No need for the intrusive Windows security model ie: "sell somebody a house with no locks on the door, and advise them to hire a team of guards(antivirus) to constantly run around and monitor all the doors and windows". And of course, Linux' superior eye-candy it a total chick-magnet.
I'm still doing my updates manually, and prefer it that way.
I can hardly imagine an update being harder than on the xp's update.microsoft.com site.
More then likely MS thought of blogging the page with more flash stuff that require (aka force) you to install silverlight, and slow down page loading.
I'm really having a bad aftertaste ever since Windows Vista came out, and silverlight, and the memory hog Internet explorer 6, and wonder if MS has their priorities right, or if they want to aim 'all for the user experience' by coloring the screen full of moving pictures and visual arts that at all not benefit the update experience, and instead decrease many people's user experience by having them to wait longer for page refreshing?
I mean I know it makes sense,and I don't know how far MS has corrected themselves of their past mistakes, but every time I read something in the likes of "MS did an improvement" article, I can't help but having these thoughts pop in my mind.
Especially now that Win7 is almost a Vista clone, makes me wonder if I'm still on the same track as MS...
I just love how some machines for no particular reason go to 100% cpu when doing updates, the svchost process is killing it. And then it takes 10 minutes to figure out a list of updates it needs when it's all in a simple file anyway. This should take about 20 seconds on even old computers. WU has gotten slower and slower every year.
[citation][nom]michaelahess[/nom]I just love how some machines for no particular reason go to 100% cpu when doing updates, the svchost process is killing it. And then it takes 10 minutes to figure out a list of updates it needs when it's all in a simple file anyway. This should take about 20 seconds on even old computers. WU has gotten slower and slower every year.[/citation]
The flip side is that there's a lot more to updates these days.
On WinNT you could go to the windows update website,and just download another service pack and install it like a program.
But these days, MS secures it's updates by a genuine or certified script, they back up old data for recovery or rollback purposes, they check every dll file on it's fileversion (as to in the old days one could actually revert a specific updated DLL to a previous one).
there's also a log generated when files did not succeed in installing,etc...
I know there's more to installations today, than before. Yet not all of this is necessary. Visual effects are the furthest from being necessary I believe.