Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Dec 2008 15:10 UTC
Editorial states: "Microsoft (or a really smart ISV) should build a full application manager for Windows, similar to what most Linux distributions do today." Most Windows applications come with their own distinctive updating mechanism (much like Mac OS X), instead of having a centralised updating location like most Linux distributions offer. While it certainly wouldn't be harmful for Windows to gain such a feature - the question remains: isn't it time we rethink program installation and management altogether?
Thread beginning with comment 340312
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
microsoft would have to let go
by TechGeek on Mon 15th Dec 2008 15:18 UTC
Member since:

For this to happen, Microsoft would have to let go of some of its control. When Code Red was running rampant on our university campus, we were not allowed by Microsoft to distribute the patch ourselves. We had to have the students all go through Windows update. You can imagine how much bandwidth that took on a campus with 20,000+ computers.

Plus, you would have to unhinge WSUS from AD. Not all machines are in AD, but you would still want them to use this service.

Reply Score: 5

judgen Member since:

Mircosoft could be the package maintainer. And only tested and scanned submitted apps would be allowed onto the repo. Thus making the threat to the customers alot smaller than current situation where people download apps from all over the place.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:

I think it would be too much of a threat to MS and it's shareholders. They would have to host competitive software along side there own products. Wile I'd love to see the Windows Update site offering Firefox, Opera and Safari along side IE.. something about winged bacon comes to mind.

Centrlized package management would do a lot of good for the end user but it's not about them, it's about the shareholder's payoff.

Reply Parent Score: 3

mabhatter Member since:

but that's the point, they want you to control them so they can be licensed. And they charge extra to programmers to use the good .msi packaging tools that only work under the AD+ SUS combo.

on top of that ISVs have their own "tried and true" methods of installing.. think Oracle, Autocad, Adobe, etc. and they won't bend to Microsoft's way, they WANT to make installing painful.

Reply Parent Score: 2