Microsoft Looks to Overhaul Windows Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

dafin0

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2009
34
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]If it makes XP like Vista/7, great! Vista/7 do a good job on WU. Big improvement over XP/2k/98.[/citation]

this isn't for win XP
 

chookman

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2007
3,319
0
20,790
1
"It will improve the user interface for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 computers running Windows Update"

Doesn't sound like it will change XP at all, I would welcome a more detailed explanation of patches on the machine though :)
 

doomtomb

Distinguished
May 12, 2009
810
0
18,980
0
[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?
 

acecombat

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
213
0
18,680
0
[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!
 

kato128

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2009
156
1
18,685
0
My understanding of this is the description gets a bit longer and possibly the box gets a bit bigger. Big whoop, must be a slow news day.
 

Regulas

Distinguished
May 11, 2008
1,202
0
19,280
0
I can bet it has to to with DRM and pirating. Pretty soon you will need a DNA sample and fingerprint scanner before you can update.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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...
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]Did anyone else just get the feeling that Windows Updates are just going to take longer from this article.[/citation]
Exactly my thoughts too!
 

michaelahess

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,711
0
19,780
0
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[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.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
I know. I said "If it makes XP like Vista/7, great!" If not, the contrary is true: Changing WU for Vista/7 is pointless IMHO. They actually did a good job on WU for Vista/7.
 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
2,709
0
20,790
4
I wonder if these changes are in part due to the lawsuites angainst M$ for WU?
http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/24348/

Im sure you all read about here a month ago...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY