Prev: Please use wxWidgets
Next: RGN animation problem
From: Jeroen Mostert on 10 Jan 2010 18:16
On 2010-01-10 20:53, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> Earlier I reported here how Windows automatic updates wreaks havoc on
> older XP machines.
>
I'm sure it was very much related to programming for the Win32 API. But
never mind that.

> For that matter, it's also a problem with the Microsoft installer;
> evidently some hare-brained MS engineer decided that quadratic time &
> memory algorithms are a really good way to force people to buy new PCs.
>
The problem with the Windows Installer is that it's "not just an
installation program; it is an extensible software management system."
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310598). It's exactly as complex and
inefficient as that sounds. Any technology that invents its own database
format to do business is probably overengineered.

To be fair, it was designed to solve some hard problems with confidence
(namely updating components of Windows itself without breaking everything),
and it's arguably been very successful in that goal. Having to reinstall
Windows because it's completely hosed is a distant memory for most people.

It's biggest selling points, compared to competing installation systems, is
that it's included with Windows, supported by Microsoft and that it has much
better rollback facilities than most other solutions (but actually
integrating with them for non-standard actions is still unnecessarily hard).

The biggest drawbacks are the steep learning curve for developers and the
overall inefficiency. By far the slowest actions on my work machine are
installing and uninstalling, and it's very noticeable because it's a monster
machine with a quadcore CPU, 8 GB of RAM and an SSD for a main disk --
installing is about the only thing that even takes time, and that
disproportionately to what it's installing.

> But now, updates can't be downloaded from Microsoft Update without
> having automatic updates turned on! Jeez. What's the f*cking point of
> having the web access when it forces you to turn on automatic updates?
>
The web site needs to have the Automatic Updates service running, because it
can hardly do updates itself. It does *not* require that the Automatic
Update service be updating *automatically*. You can configure Automatic
Updates to "notify me but don't automatically download or install them", and
then (if you really don't want to be bothered) turn off the service
altogether (switch to manual startup) and start it only as required.

Furthermore, you can always download updates individually (but don't ask me
for the details, I know finding the individual installers is a little
involved but I have no personal experience with it).

> But, the point of this posting: Microsoft Security Essentials also
> refuses to download virus definitions etc. without having automatic
> updates on.
>
If you have a program for applying updates that you've sunk a lot of time
and effort in (and to be fair here: it's successful much more often than it
fails, but the successes are of course never reported on), how would it make
sense to *not* use it and make every project roll their own? If they didn't
use Automatic Updates they'd be using the same library that you'd probably
have the same complaints about.

--
J.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Please use wxWidgets
Next: RGN animation problem