Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 08:24 UTC
Internet & Networking When Google released the first version of its Chrome web browser, many eyebrows were raised over the fact that it updated itself automatically and silently, in the background, without user intervention or even so much as a notice. As it turns out, this has been a brilliant move by Google, as Chrome users are the most likely to have up-to-date installations of their browser, followed at a respectable distance by Firefox users. Safari and Opera trail behind significantly.
Thread beginning with comment 362244
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I always hated tiny programs running in the background checking for updates. I've seen windows systems with more than 10 of those things.
Only when the program is started or running it should be allowed to check for updates. When updates are available I prefer possible user interaction.
A notification the way firefox does is nice and that linked to a timer. A yes button to download and install immediatly, a no button when you choose not to update and if you don't act within x seconds it starts to download and install the update. For major versions also a more info button or a link to the website could be nice.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That whole "even though you opened me to browse the web, you are going to have to wait while I download an install another 8 meg version of myself" thing is one of the many reasons I hate firefox.

Reply Parent Score: 3

crislevin Member since:
2008-03-27

total bs, when was last time firefox autoupdate for end users asks for 8MB download?

and you think chrome is any different in "while you open browser to surf, Im gonna download patch"?

do you realize the irony in your argument?

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

That whole "even though you opened me to browse the web, you are going to have to wait while I download an install another 8 meg version of myself" thing is one of the many reasons I hate firefox.


I found your comment somewhat bizzare. Its often easy to forget that some people are still on dialup and 8MB is a lot. That said I would suggest letting your Hardcore Microsoft Mentality go simply becuase Microsoft products have insanely large updates.

I remember a couple of years ago, and a lot has changed for the worse since then, considering Mobile broadband. There was a deal where you got the first 1GB cheap. When discussing it with one of my work friends, he demonstrated Updates required for the Microsoft platform...and they soon racked up "printer drivers" using hundreds of MB, Abobe using more etc etc. I was shocked.

I do understand some of your arguments regarding Microsoft products now. The Microsoft Platform if left unattended gets seriously out of date. If you leave a machine for months you have hours of work to get it to the latest and greatest...Including Microsft Update that requires many restarts.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I have absolutely no real clue what this thread is about, but I gather that you're bitching about the fact that Firefox downloads an update in the background without disturbing you and when you fire up Firefox again you have to wait thirty seconds for the update to take effect?

How do you think service packs work? How do you think hotfixes work? How do you think updates to most software work? You're bitching about one browser?

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

That whole "even though you opened me to browse the web, you are going to have to wait while I download an install another 8 meg version of myself" thing is one of the many reasons I hate firefox.


You don't have to wait for Firefox to download the update(s), it does that in the background, while you are surfing the web. You only have to wait while it installs the update. Which rarely takes more than 60s (usually < 30s).

Reply Parent Score: 3