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 340401
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Mostly you either just lose your changes or break the software due to missing updates to the config file.

I dispute this also. I have been updating packages for quite a few years now using package managers. Neraly always there is a default config file for the appliaction included in the package file (for people who are installing it for the first time). The package manager always notices the new default config file and the existing one, it will ask which version to use (default is to keep the old version), it can display the differences between the new default and the existing config file on the fly before you answer this question, and new versions of applications which change the config file format ALWYS retain the capability to read the older format and change it to the newer one.

Never once, in the hundreds of hundreds of times I have update applications using package managers, have I ever lost any configuration.

Not once.

Reply Parent Score: 5