Hacker News Reader

Comment by bep | Hacker News Reader

"I’m slightly amused that there were 8 updates already."

There were up to 10 test updates for the RC: http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2009/05/08/upcoming-upda...

"First impressions of Windows 7 from a Mac user:

    * I’m slightly amused that there were 8 updates already."

3 months after buying my first Apple product (MacBook Aluminium), I find out that an old Java vulnerability was still unpatched. They finally patched it, what, a couple of weeks ago? I welcome updates, I don't know what's so amusing.

Marco has a tendency to be a snot. He's very bright, writes well, and I usually agree with the basics of what he's saying (in this case, his talk about their overcluttering made me think this was worth a submit), but he frequently sells past an agreeable point.

I welcome updates, I don't know what's so amusing.

Exactly, the update manager in Ubuntu boots up every couple of days for me to make sure my installation is the most up to date possible.

Is this the part where Marco starts slagging off Linux too?

Updates are good - it shows that someone is taking an active interest in maintaining a stable product and I think it is foolish to present blatant bias here when that aspect of your argument can be easily disproven.

Yes, Microsoft is copying Apple - They did it before with the first Windows, they'll more than likely do it again in the future.

Get over it fanboys.

The Mac software updater actually runs weekly in the background, it just doesn't bother you in case no updates are available.

Every single time I've installed Windows I've spend literally hours downloading and installing updates. Microsoft never seems to get the idea of rolling their myriad updates into a giant bundle update any more often than the annual service packs. So even when I need to install like 20 software updates on Mac OS X, it's all one or two passes rather than installing 200 in five passes.

It's actually a requirement forced upon them by businesses who like to be able to pick and choose patches that are relevant, rather than an amorphous blob.

Why don't businesses disable automatic updates and distribute patches through their IT departments? Why do I have to suffer for their requirements?

That's actually quite surprising, as I assumed it had to do with Microsoft's hardware support requirements. Windows has to support any arbitrary set of x86 hardware, whilst Apple can roll together OS updates because they only have to support a limited set of Macs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com