Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Apr 2009 13:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 356332
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-07-15
Oh, I have. Anyone remember what happened, initially, when you tried to install IE7 on XP via Windows Update, and you got unlucky enough to have it error out half-way through the installation? That caused one hell of a mess on any system affected. Been there, done that. It was fixed fairly quickly, but not quickly enough to prevent a lot of people's systems from getting screwed up.
Plus, Microsoft's method of releasing updates and additional patches leaves a lot to be desired. What, may I ask, is the point of having .NET Framework and then on top of it have to download hotfixes or service packs (.NET is merely an example here, there are others)? Novel idea, why not, when a service pack is released, repackage the whole thing with the service pack slipstreamed into it? Leave the hotfix up for those who've already installed the base package, but for those who didn't, we wouldn't have to run cycle after cycle of windows update checks to make sure we've got all the patches, meanwhile having to deal with their temporary files that are left over and weren't deleted when they should have been?