Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Nov 2012 11:55 UTC
Windows I'm back from my vacation to the US, the jetlag has mostly passed, so back to OSNews it is! So, Windows 8 has been out for only a little while, and we're already moving on to the next 'version' of Windows. Version is between quotation marks, because unlike previous releases, this doesn't appear to be the a monolithic single release. Instead, Windows Blue, as it's currently codenamed, is more of a procedural change than a technical change: Windows is moving to yearly releases for all devices - PC, tablet, phone.
Thread beginning with comment 543682
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Or could it be
by shotsman on Fri 30th Nov 2012 13:31 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Windows 8 SP1 with a bit of added gloss?

They really need to fix their update policies first. Get rid of the endless reboots and the cases where after appling a so called 'fix' some of your configuration has been nuked.
Yes MS I'm looking at you. I had all auto updates turned off and after manually selecting 125Mb of updates, I rebooted and carried on blissfully unaware that one of the patched had reset it to 'Auto download and apply'.
Then I was in the middle of rendering a number of large MPeg4's, the frigging system rebooted itself. The render was going to take 20+ mins each so I left the PC to get on with it.
I was not a happy bunny when I returned to find the PC had rebooted itself.
What a load of utter tripe their system is.

They should get around to fixing a whole host of other things before implementing this bit of marketing tat.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Or could it be
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 30th Nov 2012 13:32 in reply to "Or could it be"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Get rid of the endless reboots


What?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Or could it be
by shotsman on Fri 30th Nov 2012 14:36 in reply to "RE: Or could it be"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Thom,
What I mean is that you apply one set of patches, reboot and check for updates. So you download and apply them and you have to reboot again.

I did a clean Server 2008 R2 install last week. To apply all the updates, I had to do the above operation SIX times. Updates on top of Updates.

By way of contrast, if I do a RHEL 6 install, apply one set of updates and you are done and ready to go.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Or could it be
by Laurence on Fri 30th Nov 2012 16:18 in reply to "RE: Or could it be"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

He does have a point.

Windows Update is pretty poor as update managers go by:

* no proper foresight with dependency resolution. So instead of just jumping to the end and pulling all the latest patches, it has to run through every update incrementally. This often means that you need to reboot after some core updates before the next increment of core updates can be performed.

* too many core systems that cannot be independently restarted. I'm by no means saying that Linux is perfect, but I love the fact that the only updates that need a reboot are kernel updates. Everything else can be independently unloaded and reloaded.

* annoying forced reboot cycles. If an update happens that needs a reboot, you get a 15 minute (IIRC) warning and that cannot be cancelled, only postponed for a few hours. Worse yet, if you happen to be away from your PC during that tim (eg making dinner) then you may find that Windows has forcefully rebooted your system.

While most of those points I can forgive because of various architecture decisions within Windows; mean a fix would be more work and potentially more dangerous than the annoyance of the current set up. But the last point is pretty unforgivable in my opinion. There should be no circumstances where the OS is allowed to reboot an unattended PC; that's an administrator / end user responsibility alone. And the example the aforementioned commenter raised was just one of many great reasons why an unattended PC shouldn't be assumed safe for system reboots.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Or could it be
by Lennie on Sun 2nd Dec 2012 19:29 in reply to "Or could it be"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

At work I've seen in the past it would also enable the firewall if it was turned off.

Not cool Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 2