One thing MS needs to implement in a future version of Windows

[Mr Winkle]

i'd really like to see a unified update api that other applications can use so you can see which of your apps need to be updated all in one place, a windows update-like utility which lists all 3rd party applications installed.

the reason for this is that i get really peeved at having to keep removing stupid resource hogging background tasks and services from my machine that do nothing except check for updates (but take up 2-10mb of ram in the process) many applications and utilities install such bespoke update checkers (adobe, google, java etc) it would be nice to have a os level framework in place so app developers don't need to keep adding tasks to start up or to services and updates are downloaded from one console.

are 3rd party updaters something you find you have to keep removing?

[Colin-uk Veteran]

all the damn time, they're annoying :p

the best thing ive found so far is sumo or the filehippo program update checker.

[hdood]

Well.. Windows already has several APIs to access the internet. Applications should just check for updates when you run them instead of having backgrounds processes. Problem solved.

[zhangm Supervisor]

It is still in the hands of the software writers, Microsoft can't do anything to outright make these things stop working. Yes, it is annoying, and I don't see why Adobe and Sun have to go this route. It is obviously possible to let a program check for updates without a dedicated process or service: I don't see Firefox installing a service to manage updates.

[voidpharoh]

Well.. Windows already has several APIs to access the internet. Applications should just check for updates when you run them instead of having backgrounds processes. Problem solved.

+1 to this. I get so sick and tired of applications that install a startup process or a windows service just to check for updates. Why can't they do a quick check when the program is run?

[Growled Member]

i'd really like to see a unified update api that other applications can use so you can see which of your apps need to be updated all in one place, a windows update-like utility which lists all 3rd party applications installed.

That would be nice. Microsoft could do it but I don't imagine they will. They could set up a database to notify you if a program had a update, even if they don't actually update the app itself.

[Quillz]

Well.. Windows already has several APIs to access the internet. Applications should just check for updates when you run them instead of having backgrounds processes. Problem solved.

This is just what the Sparkle API for Mac OS X does. As soon as you launch most applications, they can automatically alert you of an updated version, automatically download it, install and then restart.

There is also an "AppUpdate" widget that checks all the software on your system.

[mdtaUK]

Why not just unify it all with Windows Update...

[Growled Member]

Why not just unify it all with Windows Update...

That almost sounds like a Linux distro repository. :D

[zhangm Supervisor]

Why not just unify it all with Windows Update...

Liability and maintenance issues.

Windows Update is more or less a trusted source for executables, and Microsoft is ultimately responsible for anything that is pushed out via updates. Introducing third-party software adds complications (who screens it, who maintains updated links, who ensures server uptime, where do support calls go).

I wouldn't be comfortable trusting WU with third party software, the update process runs with admin rights, and it is too tempting a target for malware writers.

[Dick Montage]

The whole "adding and removing" apps under Windows is a mess. Things write all over the registry, can dump files anywhere they choose, can install/uninstall in any way they please whether it adheres to guidelines or not.

Installing "helper" apps to check for updates is lazy coding, but seems to be allowed.

This is all down to the developers, but MS could add API hooks to things?

Force developers down the "Add/Remove Programmes" route - with a status box at the side?

[Vykranth]

One thing that Microsoft could start with is to provide updates for their own entire products lines.

Yesterday, I downloaded the Intellipoint 7.0, Intellitype Pro 7.0 and Lifecam 2.07 software. I do not recall having ever seen the updates of these published to WU.

After that, making an update repository ... I don't see Microsoft accepting the burden for such a thing:

* what happens if Microsoft needs to publish an update for a competition product? Like Google Chrome or Firefox? It happened in the past that an update to Flash was pushed via WU but that was an extremely critical update.

* What if a new update break something? Can silent installation of anything can be trusted at all?

* how does Microsoft handle support calls for customers who complain that an application published on WU installed without the user consents an Evil browser toolbar?

* after that, there is also the number of updates problems: depending on your number of applications installed and the update frequency of the apps, you may end up having everyday an icon jumping up and down in the taskbar and losing time over such concern.

[Dick Montage]

MS shouldn't be responsible for the update, just the API.

A manufacturer could host a simple SOAP webservice whereby an appName can return an appNumber.

A unified version checker service would collect the installed appNames and appNumbers upon install, and keep them alongside the Add/Remove Programs features. Obviously manufacturers would need to adhere to this.

On a scheduled basis, or whenever WU was run, these could be checked. The outcome could be alerted to the user much as WU does, but in a distinctly different area noting it as 3rd Party Apps or such.

Moreover, the Add/Remove Programs applet could tie into this, noting your version number, latest release version number - and hey why not tie in with the "Reported issues" feature too? Make this one applet suitable for the maintenance of applications?

[MidnightDevil]

I do like the idea of a unified update tool for Windows and installed software, reminds me of a linux system. I can understand what involves, but would certainly unify and simplify the update process for all the software installed, or API compatible software.

[Vykranth]

MS shouldn't be responsible for the update, just the API.

A manufacturer could host a simple SOAP webservice whereby an appName can return an appNumber.

A unified version checker service would collect the installed appNames and appNumbers upon install, and keep them alongside the Add/Remove Programs features. Obviously manufacturers would need to adhere to this.

On a scheduled basis, or whenever WU was run, these could be checked. The outcome could be alerted to the user much as WU does, but in a distinctly different area noting it as 3rd Party Apps or such.

Moreover, the Add/Remove Programs applet could tie into this, noting your version number, latest release version number - and hey why not tie in with the "Reported issues" feature too? Make this one applet suitable for the maintenance of applications?

Interesting proposal. Actually, most of the information about updates is present in the MSI installer tables: you can get when you display the 'Update Info Link' column in the Program & Features control panel applet.

That could be enhanced with the SOAP service you mentioned.

Still, that would require the software manufacturer to properly fill the information. Right now, on my machine, only 10 out of 55 installed applications have the information properly entered.

That would do the job of Sumo or the Filehippo update checker but not much more.

Side note, Nick, Bejeweled 2? Haven't you tried Puzzle Quest?

[Eevo]

i been waiting 10 years for ms to introduce this.

[protocol7]

I'd love to see something like this too, but as suggested, the onus is really on the part of the software writers. Sun should definitely get with the program as their java updates bug me to no end. Anytime I update the JRE I have to go to control panel, turn off the update check and remove their next gen Firefox plugin. Why it can't read and respect your settings is beyond me. Just slack programming.

[ilike2burnthing]

Actually windows update is better than it used to be, it checks updates for drivers, my touch pad and logitech software, most likely others as well.

[Lechio]

In GNU/Linux we have the package manager:

This tool automates the process of installing and updating all of the software. With a simple click of a button all of the software gets updated to its latest version ( this process can also run in the background as a daemon and automatically update the packages ). Installing software is also as simple as clicking on a checkbox. Thousands of applications are available on a server (mirrored all over the world to get better transfer speeds).

Adding new software sources is also quite easy, meaning that an "outside" software distributor can use this tool too.

If Microsoft went this path it would bring huge benefits for the user. Updating software on a Microsoft system is a real mess right now, with applications providing their own way of keeping up-to-date, taking up system resources with the process. True that these can be disabled but it's also true that it's not a very good idea to be running unpatched software, specially on a productive system. Another downside to this is the bandwidth resources that are consumed with every single application updating, when it would be quite easy to just have a single machine downloading the updates and distributing those over the network.

This is not something innovative, it's been around for quite some time in the GNU/Linux UNIX worlds. Microsoft would not have any problem in providing this to the Windows platform users. It's more of a "thing" for Microsoft, by doing something like this they would be opening a lot of doors to progress.

When you are the leading force, progress and changes seem too scary to even consider.

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ I think that part of the problem that Microsoft would face, Lechio, is that the software often used on Windows systems is non-free.

I don't mean free as in cost. I mean free as in freely re-distributable. All the Linux software that updates via the package manager is FLOSS software. There are no restrictions on who can re-distribute it. Apps that are proprietary often disallow this sort of sharing, so could not be set up in Microsoft's (or some other third-party) repository without specific permission and copyright concerns.

I suppose a Microsoft Package Manager could poll each vendor's website, like Linux users can install the winehq repo for bleeding edge wine releases, rather than using the official distro-approved releases. It would be a lot more work, though.

[Lechio]

^^^Not all Linux software that updates via package manager is free. :)

If you think about it, companies currently do that, allow others to distribute their software. Think about sites like tucows, and the like. Think about magazines that distribute "trial" software that gets "unlocked" after buying a license for that software. (...) They are all allowed to distribute proprietary software. It's in the software companies's best interesses. No objection from them there, not an issue.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Lechio

[ichi]

All the Linux software that updates via the package manager is FLOSS software.

That's true for some distros like Ubuntu.

On other distros like Gentoo you can install and update commercial software such as Doom3 or UT2004 (along with all it's mods and map packs) using the package manager.

[insanelyapple]

meh, as someone said - you can do this by 3rd party tools; one thing that MS should implement in next windows is virtual desktop.

[Berserk87]

My favorite thing about Linux was how everyhing was automatically updated.

If ms included this in windows it would be nice, but on such a massive scale it might be quite difficult for them.

Linux distros make up how much of the market compared to windows?

[Lechio]

My favorite thing about Linux was how everyhing was automatically updated.

If ms included this in windows it would be nice, but on such a massive scale it might be quite difficult for them.

Linux distros make up how much of the market compared to windows?

Not so difficult as it may seem. They even have the network, not to mention that this is the leading company in the industry. They don't lack the resources, not even questionable.

Depends of what is considered market share. One thing is for sure:

Linux powers the Web.