Comments on: Microsoft: Open Update For All

By: Blog: Microsoft - Open Update For All | Sarkle

Blog: Microsoft - Open Update For All | Sarkle — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:28:10 +0000

[…] Full article addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sarkle.net%2Ftechnology%2F2008%2F07%2F31%2Fblog-microsoft-open-update-for-all%2F’; addthis_title = ‘Blog%3A+Microsoft+-+Open+Update+For+All’; addthis_pub = ”; […]

By: Paul Ellis

Paul Ellis — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:01:28 +0000

Raddy,

Excellent point about Windows Live Care. I forgot that they might do it that way. Look what that anti-trust suite has done to Microsoft. They have to deliver new compelling features via Live and OneCare instead of being able to offer new ones in the OS; you know like Mac and Linux do.

By: raddy

raddy — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:12:52 +0000

Good suggestion.
But i think even if Microsoft decide to roll-out this feature, they might do it only via Windows Live One Care.

By: y@

y@ — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:02:25 +0000

There is an app for OS X called AppFresh that does a pretty good job. According to the site, it says: “AppFresh is free while under development. We might change the licensing in 1.0 and later releases.”

Who knows what happens with pricing when it goes into full release, but it’s still a pretty cool application. It found updates for applications I forgot I had installed on my machine.

By: Greg R

Greg R — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:36:41 +0000

Microsoft’s driver certification program (WHQL) doesn’t even work. The program isn’t particularly expensive, but it’s time consuming and a lot of hardware vendors don’t feel like jumping through Microsoft certification hoops each time they want to release a new driver (especially if those releases are to fix urgent problems with previous versions). Software vendors will be that much more resistant, especially the hundreds of vendors of really interesting freeware, making any kind of certification program instituted by Microsoft rather useless. For this reason I think consumers will always have to rely on third party applications for updates. In my view its best to rely on Microsoft exclusively for Microsoft updates and to have a program like RadarSync (which is extremely easy to use) run once a week for everything else.

By: TechBender

TechBender — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:07:22 +0000

You’re right, it doesn’t need to be open-source (sorry, it always flies out of me when I talk about Linux).

If Microsoft did bring out a widescope updater like that, they can’t just clip it onto Vista (which would be nice) and build it up from there. Vista is already poisoned in a lot of minds, and doing that would make it ‘uncool’. It would have to come out with Windows 7, packaged more as a corporate tool, so everyone gives a fresh eye.

It would fantastic to have, and thinking about it know, I think Microsoft would not be adverse to the idea. It would forward the “Microsoft is all you need” mentality they love to breed in the populace.

By: Paul Ellis

Paul Ellis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:49:51 +0000

It really doesn’t have anything to do with being “open-source”. With the exception of Gentoo, all of the Linux distros use binaries for their automated package management update systems. RPM and APT can do source packages, but they don’t distribute them by default because they are larger.

True, it could take 1-3 years to take off in a significant way. They better get started now so that it will be viable when Windows 7 comes out. Just because it will take some time to be worth it doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. Look at how long it took for Apple’s decision to scrap their old OS to reap rewards.

By: TechBender

TechBender — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:39:24 +0000

Linux distros have been doing this for years, but it’s only been able to do it because it works for open-source, free software, as opposed to the many different pieces of proprietary software that dot our hard drives.

It is possible, however, if Microsoft push for some kind of “Let us know, and we’ll get you updated” standardized hook for new programs, but it would take forever to get off the ground and become worthwhile.

By: Paul Ellis

Paul Ellis — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:02:58 +0000

I don’t know this would be something they would have to charge an exorbitant amount for. There are a lot of areas where you can leverage Microsoft platforms without onerous processes and charges (Live ID, Messenger and Maps controls, HealthVault, etc). They could have certified and non-certified software however.

“only really good for Microsoft and the consumers, not for everyone else.” Wouldn’t “eveyone else” in that statement be a very small group, relatively speaking? Good for Microsoft and good for consumers sounds like a winning plan to me.

By: Bob Caswell

Bob Caswell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:35:25 +0000

Great idea, Paul. Another issue this solves is the inefficiency associated with software updates. My wife hates how every other day the computer is always updating something.

If there were a global way to force updates to only happen within a certain window of time once a week… It would make it so we could use our computers again right after we turn them on, rather than waiting for whatever program that inevitably needs to hog resources first.

By: Sami Khan

Sami Khan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:32:07 +0000

In order for Microsoft to provide a service such as this it would mean charging thousands of dollars to any developer to sign some sort of partnership agreement and get Microsoft certification. The red tape would be a headache, but I can imagine Microsoft doing something as such in the future. It is more likely to anger developers rather than making them happy. Microsoft would likely also remove some of the security messages for such “certified” software. It’s a good little business, but only really good for Microsoft and the consumers, not for everyone else.