Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Feb 2013 11:23 UTC
Permalink for comment 551804
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 05/22/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-07-15
Of course it is, if you understand the concepts. Remember, from the point of view of the majority of users, they just "installed that Adobe Reader thingy" and now their computer slowed down a bit. We know we can turn these background updaters and plugins off. Unfortunately, most people don't even have a concept that a program is multiple parts. It's "that Flash thing" or "that pdf thing" and they no more understand all the crap it installs than most of us would understand the inner workings of subatomic particles.
Well, strictly speaking, it's not the os that does it in either case. I will say though, most OS X programs are much better behaved (although, of course, Adobe products are an exception). Most programs on OS X don't run background updaters, they check for updates when you launch the program and either install them automatically (Chrome) or alert you and let you decide. This is not an inherent strength of OS X, just a consequence of better application design. I'd like to see this design be used more often in Windows programs, and there is no reason why this couldn't happen except for laziness on the part of the application developers.