Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater
-
This may be ok for typical user, but not for me. I need to have full control as to what goes on. While having auto-update is nice, but it can break havoc as well. There are times I need to delay update for sometime, for example, at the time of release.
Yusuf May I help you?
I agree. Google seem to be quite stubborn about this. I would have no objection to their setting it as a default, so long as I could override it. Even if it was only offered via something like FF's about:config that would be an improvement, although not ideal.
Kevin
-
To be fair, you can, if you know what you're doing. The updater is fired up by a scheduled task - Windows provides a standard UI for modifying or removing those from the Control Panel. It's not like it's really hidden away somewhere. Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
There should be a regular way of doing it though.
Kevin
-
Now we know why every Google product stays in beta. They have a corporate policy against even the most basic configuration management principles. Of course, their 'silent updater' will remain so until someone hacks it and uses it to deliver a malicious payload...
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
Now we know why every Google product stays in beta
Gary Wheeler wrote:
Of course, their 'silent updater' will remain so until someone hacks it and uses it to deliver a malicious payload...
That will complete Beta testing and mark the start of ver 1.0 shipment. :doh:
Yusuf May I help you?
-
Regardless of whether it is most effective what are your own views of the feature?
Kevin
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it. The only thing I agree with is that Opera needs to get a more light weight patch system than a full up installer. (O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final.)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
-
There should be a regular way of doing it though.
Kevin
Control Panel -> Scheduled Tasks -> Right-click, delete If such a thing as a "regular way" of disabling periodic tasks could be said to exist under Windows, this would be it. It's not like there's some "application updates" applet that all the other browsers hook into.
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
Never used that since there is no linux version. Anyways from my gentoo linux background I much prefer the operating system to automatically handle the updates (like gentoo does with all installed applications) although this probably will never happen in windows. My second choice is an OS supported auto update mechanism instead of a lot of installed application having their own (buggy memory hogging) background process to check for and download updates.
John
-
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it. The only thing I agree with is that Opera needs to get a more light weight patch system than a full up installer. (O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final.)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
dan neely wrote:
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it.
That gets my vote!
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced. This message is made of fully recyclable Zeros and Ones
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
-
That is Christopher Duncan's favorite Chrome feature.
Troublemaker. :)
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
-
Control Panel -> Scheduled Tasks -> Right-click, delete If such a thing as a "regular way" of disabling periodic tasks could be said to exist under Windows, this would be it. It's not like there's some "application updates" applet that all the other browsers hook into.
What I really meant was an official way in the application itself.
Kevin
-
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it. The only thing I agree with is that Opera needs to get a more light weight patch system than a full up installer. (O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final.)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
dan neely wrote:
O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final
It won't take them ages to get 10.0 out based on past form, unless 10 has major new features. But yes a patcher is long overdue.
Kevin
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
Absolutely. I tried Chromium for a while but couldn't be bothered updating it by myself and went back. Windows update can occasionally get out of your way but I get sick of the reboots, and especially reboot nag screens. I remember being told that MS was going to treat a reboot as a bug in Vista, obviously not a very high priority one. The last thing that wanted a reboot was an update for the compatibility view list for Internet Explorer. That just seems lazy.
Matt Dockerty
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Most users prefer to disable automatic updates where they can
mmm... Firefox, which does allow you to easily disable automatic updates, still has 85% of its userbase updated within 21 days. That's a sizable majority. Personally, the only browser I have automatic updates disabled for is IE, due WU's habit of requiring me to reboot after installing updates. Of course, IE stats aren't included in this study, so who knows how many users are doing the same...
Shog9 wrote:
so who knows how many users are doing the same...
I would guess more are doing the same than not. Like you, I hate that my computer can restart without my explicit permission. I leave my computer on 24/7 so that any attempts to contact me are waiting for me whenever I show up to unlock my computer. I was out of the office on Friday and when I came back in on Monday I found an instant message that had been sent just a little while after I'd left for the day on Thursday. It wasn't life-changing, but if it had been and if my computer had rebooted itself over the weekend it could have caused some trouble. Partially, I would say it's also a trust thing. With Chrome I know that it'll do its update without adversely affecting my system. With Microsoft, too many experiences say you can't be so sure.
-
To be fair, you can, if you know what you're doing. The updater is fired up by a scheduled task - Windows provides a standard UI for modifying or removing those from the Control Panel. It's not like it's really hidden away somewhere. Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
Shog9 wrote:
Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
Last I knew, that wasn't quite true. Granted, it has been a while, but all you could get was the Chromium code which is where Chrome came from, but Chrome has had a lot of changes since then. Chrome's code could be fully available now though I guess.
-
Absolutely. I tried Chromium for a while but couldn't be bothered updating it by myself and went back. Windows update can occasionally get out of your way but I get sick of the reboots, and especially reboot nag screens. I remember being told that MS was going to treat a reboot as a bug in Vista, obviously not a very high priority one. The last thing that wanted a reboot was an update for the compatibility view list for Internet Explorer. That just seems lazy.
Matt Dockerty
At one time we were promised that reboots had been greatly tamed in Windows (was that circa Windows 2000?) but it seems just as bad as ever with MS's apps. Though the worst I experienced was VS 6 on Win 95. Required 5 reboots! Two of those were for getting an up-to-date version of IE with SP and DCOM. Most of the time I just let Windows Update run on shutdown now (after first checking what it's downloaded - I set it to download but don't install). Quite often though the shutdown button indicates it's downloaded some stuff when there was no tray icon. In that case I use the hyperlink to shut down without installing and then wait for the tray icon to appear again next session. It's sneaky the way they do that though since if you're too fast you can press the button by mistake and do an install.
Kevin
-
At one time we were promised that reboots had been greatly tamed in Windows (was that circa Windows 2000?) but it seems just as bad as ever with MS's apps. Though the worst I experienced was VS 6 on Win 95. Required 5 reboots! Two of those were for getting an up-to-date version of IE with SP and DCOM. Most of the time I just let Windows Update run on shutdown now (after first checking what it's downloaded - I set it to download but don't install). Quite often though the shutdown button indicates it's downloaded some stuff when there was no tray icon. In that case I use the hyperlink to shut down without installing and then wait for the tray icon to appear again next session. It's sneaky the way they do that though since if you're too fast you can press the button by mistake and do an install.
Kevin
Or worse you can be typing something in the middle of an update nagathon and accidentally give permission for the system to be shut down. They might just be trying to protect their non-technical users from urgent threats like Blaster but many of the updates that we get these days aren't for threats, but still nag you. I'm sure I read something about good UI design and avoiding superfluous user prompts (lol, don't get me started about UAC). My compatibility list did not need a system reboot, it probably didn't even need an IE reboot. I would have settled for 'please restart IE when possible to begin using a new compatibility list'. Better still just nothing, nobody really needed informing that this list would be updated, like Chrome does.
Matt Dockerty
-
Or worse you can be typing something in the middle of an update nagathon and accidentally give permission for the system to be shut down. They might just be trying to protect their non-technical users from urgent threats like Blaster but many of the updates that we get these days aren't for threats, but still nag you. I'm sure I read something about good UI design and avoiding superfluous user prompts (lol, don't get me started about UAC). My compatibility list did not need a system reboot, it probably didn't even need an IE reboot. I would have settled for 'please restart IE when possible to begin using a new compatibility list'. Better still just nothing, nobody really needed informing that this list would be updated, like Chrome does.
Matt Dockerty
Yes, Windows still has some basic usability flaws. The most annoying is failing to honour the active application when another one is launching. So you're typing away and then find you're suddenly typing in the new app! :mad: This was supposed to have been fixed in XP but seems only to work about a quarter of a time. I don't know whether this has been fixed in Vista or Windows 7?
Kevin
-
dan neely wrote:
O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final
It won't take them ages to get 10.0 out based on past form, unless 10 has major new features. But yes a patcher is long overdue.
Kevin
10.0's been in work for over a year (they were using it for the ACID3 race). They backported some enhancements (notably the new, faster JS engine back to make 9.5x) so I'm thinking they're having some sort of issues.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
-
Never used that since there is no linux version. Anyways from my gentoo linux background I much prefer the operating system to automatically handle the updates (like gentoo does with all installed applications) although this probably will never happen in windows. My second choice is an OS supported auto update mechanism instead of a lot of installed application having their own (buggy memory hogging) background process to check for and download updates.
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
My second choice is an OS supported auto update mechanism instead of a lot of installed application having their own (buggy memory hogging) background process to check for and download updates.
AIUI Weven offers that functionality. It remains to be seen how many apps will take advantage of it.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
-
10.0's been in work for over a year (they were using it for the ACID3 race). They backported some enhancements (notably the new, faster JS engine back to make 9.5x) so I'm thinking they're having some sort of issues.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Didn't realise that. Similar to Firefox 3.5 then which also ran into problems.
Kevin
