Microsoft Cancels Windows 7 Service Pack 2
Quote from: Un It's patching mechanism is pretty poor.
Just wondering why you say that?
I actually find the W7 updates process quite quick, effective and relatively unobtrusive. And W8 is better still.
XP wasn't great and Vista seemed even worse.
I wasn't comparing any two particular varieties of Windows.
As far as I can tell, XP and W7 are equally slow/poor - a minor (non-kernel) fix should take no more than a very small number of seconds.
And any patch is bound to be intrusive - I wouldn't patch/upgrade anything without keeping a close eye on it.
I've recently had to update a pile of patches to W7 on a netbook, so that I could say it's patched and that I won't be doing any more Windows patching.
It will be used as a dual boot PC almost exclusively with an alternative OS - so I won't be doing any Windows patches / virus updates ever again.
As far as I can tell, XP and W7 are equally slow/poor - a minor (non-kernel) fix should take no more than a very small number of seconds.
And any patch is bound to be intrusive - I wouldn't patch/upgrade anything without keeping a close eye on it.
I've recently had to update a pile of patches to W7 on a netbook, so that I could say it's patched and that I won't be doing any more Windows patching.
It will be used as a dual boot PC almost exclusively with an alternative OS - so I won't be doing any Windows patches / virus updates ever again.
Any fool can do an update routine that does the job quickly and doesn't automatically handle failures.
Writing the update routine so that (a) it can be rolled back easily and (b) if there is a failure at absolutely any point in the routine (including the PC losing power) the system is left in a consistent state and the update can be re-attempted obviously make it a lot more complicated.
Writing the update routine so that (a) it can be rolled back easily and (b) if there is a failure at absolutely any point in the routine (including the PC losing power) the system is left in a consistent state and the update can be re-attempted obviously make it a lot more complicated.
I would definitely agree with all that!
Which makes lumping the entire configuration (the registry) into one place all the more inexplicable.
Which makes lumping the entire configuration (the registry) into one place all the more inexplicable.
Quote from: Sprite Yeah but imagine 12 of them when reinstalling your system
Only 12?
The times I've reinstalled (including SP3) I've had around 30 updates to do.
Quote from: ejs ... only run the most recent Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool etc.
I hate that I am repeatedly offered that thing, even after 'instructing' the update site not to offer it to me. Waste of time and bandwidth that never seems to do anything (I don't need it anyway).
That's because it's spyware - it won't remove any "malicious" software.
According to Wikipedia,
According to Wikipedia,
Quote As released, the tool is configured to report anonymized data about infections to Microsoft if any are detected.[2] The reporting behavior is disclosed in the tool's EULA, and can be disabled if desired.[5]
In a June 2006 Microsoft report,[6] the company claimed that the tool had removed 16 million instances of malicious software from 5.7 million of 270 million total unique Windows computers since its release in January 2005. The report also stated that, on average, the tool removes malicious software from 1 in every 311 computers on which it runs. As of 19 May 2009 Microsoft claims that the software has removed password stealer threats from 859,842 machines.
