An Update For Windows Update

An infrastructure update has been planned for Windows Update client. The gradual roll-out of this update will begin in late July. This update will occur automatically to any system configured to either receive updates "automatically" or "notify" customers that new updates are available for download.

For enterprise customers who use Windows Server Update Services or Systems Management Server, all updating, including the WU client, is controlled by the network administrators, who have authority over the download and install experience. Windows Vista customers who select "never check for updates" in their WU settings will not receive this update until they manually install updates from Windows Update.
In this particular update, there will not make any changes to the way WU looks or feels, instead the following have been improved:
- The length of time it takes Windows Update to scan for updates
- The speed in which signature updates will be delivered

Detailed information on this is posted on the Microsoft Update blog.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hitachi aiming for 5TB hard drive by 2010

Next Story

PC vendors pessimistic about MIDs

36 Comments

View more comments

(TCLN Ryster said @ #2.5)

So are Office Updates, Exchange Server Updates and SQL Server Updates.... I suppose it's "entirely possible" those are all made by the same team too. :blink:
don't forget visual studio, .net, silverlight, wmp along with NVidia drivers :P

But seriously...they delivered the Ultimate Extras they promised and beyond that no promise was made as to how many they would deliver. Hell, lets play along and imagine the same guys developing Windows Update also do Ultimate Extras. Even if they could be allocated more time to add extras I'd much rather see them spending their time working on the Update Infrastructure given it's a pretty fundamental part of the OS and all.

I'd like to hope no one actually bought Ultimate for the extras and instead saw them as a small bonus on the side.

Delivered all they promised? It said to "check back regularly" for more extras, though they've removed that now. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that updates every 9 months is not "regular", especially when most of that was for language packs (something that should be available to all, not just an "extra"). I, like many others, was expecting new items to be released every couple of months - nothing major but most items like Bitlocker, Dreamscene and Texas Hold 'Em. Microsoft misrepresented what Ultimate Extras actually were - they are a huge company and their behaviour on this matter is unacceptable.

It's interesting that you call other people ignorant yet fail to justify that statement or state to whom you are referring (or which particular statement). Are we supposed to guess? Telepathy isn't my thing.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #2.4)

I couldn't care less what you think - Ultimate Extras were a PROMISED feature of Vista Ultimate. The update screen actually tells you to check back regularly, yet all they've released is a handful of virtually useless items (sound schemes, languages, etc).


How do you know they don't? They're both delivered through the same service, so it's entirely possible they are linked.


Just because you personally don't find the items they've released useful doesn't change the reality that they did in fact release said items, so they did actually release Ultimate Extras, just not ones you were expecting.

The issue, perhaps, is in your expectations as opposed to what they actually released. I'm sure some people do find the extras useful.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #2.7)
I, like many others, was expecting new items to be released every couple of months - nothing major but most items like Bitlocker, Dreamscene and Texas Hold 'Em. Microsoft misrepresented what Ultimate Extras actually were - they are a huge company and their behaviour on this matter is unacceptable.
I don't think they over hyped them at all. They showed off dreamscene and that got people excited, mentioned Bit locker too but they didn't do that big a frenzy about it. I haven't seen a single advertising campaign for instance that focused on those features.

If anyone mirepresented them it was the press and media, not MS. People generated their own ideas of what they would be and hyped the features ALOT more than MS ever did. Hell, they were almost announced at the 11th hour...it wasn't until very late in the development that they were even unveiled. They were never that vital a part of Vista.

And as mentioned they delivered those promised. The "check back for updates" could easily refer to the fact that several of them arrived a few months plus after vista arrived and thus people did have to check back. I'm sorry they didn't meet your expectations, but MS delivered on those that were promised and any lack of further deliveries is more an issue with people thinking they are more than they ever were. I'd like more too but it won't kill me not to get them. In the end of the day MS gives away that much software that I'm not fussed if Ultimate Extras is ignored a bit. They could easily get some apps they currently distribute to everyone and make it an Ultimate Only extra....but who would want that?

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #2.4)

How do you know they don't? They're both delivered through the same service, so it's entirely possible they are linked.

They're linked in the same way that EVERYTHING on Microsoft's website is linked. I don't think you realise just how huge Microsoft is, they're the biggest software company in the world, they have hundreds of individual teams that work on different things, even things that actually DO link together in some way but are separated to a degree for a design sake.
Windows Updates have nothing to do with Ultimate Extras, the extras just happen to be delivered through the service, along with just about everything else.

Besides, why are you bitching, anyway? Even if they WERE made by the same team, can you honestly say you'd rather have some unnamed extra that you'll probably never use instead of a PERFORMANCE upgrade?
I know what I'd want.

(Kushan said @ #13)
Besides, why are you bitching, anyway? Even if they WERE made by the same team, can you honestly say you'd rather have some unnamed extra that you'll probably never use instead of a PERFORMANCE upgrade?

I'd rather have something that was an advertised feature versus something that wasn't expected. Obviously all improvements are a good thing.

(Smigit said @ #12)
I don't think they over hyped them at all.

I never said over-hyped but misrepresented. They didn't explain that the items they announced were pretty much all we were going to get and it did say to check back regularly. It was implied, or could be perceived, that there would be a constant flow of releases. If that was always their intention they should have made very clear that that was what people should expect. We're not talking about a small, naive company - we're talking about the largest software company with the dominant market position. It's simply pathetic behaviour.

(Kushan said @ #13)
I don't think you realise just how huge Microsoft is, they're the biggest software company in the world, they have hundreds of individual teams that work on different things

Exactly. Which is why it's so annoying that they couldn't just chuck together a handful of stuff to appease the masses.

Epic fail for not getting the point of the story and trying yet again to use any Microsoft story as an opportunity to bash Vista.

I agree with the assumption that most users thought that Ultimate Extras would appear regularly over time, but this was not the case. However, Microsoft did what it said and sadly, no more, no less in this regard.

I think that the Windows Update team did a wonderful job with Vista because of the way it works. And for the speed increase, is a change most of us will appreciate.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #3.1)
Windows Update does indeed work well, as does the automatic checking for drivers - this makes Vista a lot more user friendly than XP.

Windows Update has had "automatic checking for drivers" since it was released back in 1998 with the release of Windows 98 (the quality of those drivers, the breadth of drivers available, and whether or not you chose to install them, are other issues entirely...), so, there is no relative advantage of Vista over XP in that regard.

This is great. Windows update has always been a pet peeve of mine ever since xp because of how long it took to update. Any speed improvement is great!

(Citrusleak said @ #4)
This is great. Windows update has always been a pet peeve of mine ever since xp because of how long it took to update. Any speed improvement is great!

Assuming you are actually referring to Microsoft Update and not Windows Update (two different sites/services), you might actually want to try Windows Update instead of Microsoft Update - on older slower PCs with less RAM, Windows Update can often be nearly instantaneous with its results, compared to a 5-45 minutes wait with Microsoft Update. You can always switch back to Microsoft Update when you are finished getting the OS patches, to get "other" updates...

It's only slow if you have a select few programs that Microsoft Update works on, and make heavy use of Windows Installer. It seems Office 2003 is by far the worst offender here; Microsoft Update with Office 2007 scans pretty quickly.

I still can't understand why they just don't use the code from Office Update in Microsoft Update. It's stupid-fast on every system, and even works on Office 2000 as well. If you fake the user-agent in Internet Explorer to NT 5.x, Office Update works in Vista too. :suspicious:

(jesseinsf said @ #5)
it scans fast untill you install "Microsoft Update"....I hope this update works with Microsoft Update as well.

Same thing here. It has taken as long 20 minutes just to scan for the updates. That's NOT including the amount of time to download, verify and install. Getting to the point of almost hating to do Microsoft updates!

Heard it was because of of Office 2003, but still........................

I get the same long time with Office 2007. So I just do the updates via office.microsoft.com, much much faster, and leave Windows Update to do the Windows Update

That email was from 2003, and was about the Microsoft download site. They're currently redesigning that site with Silverlight.


This is about Windows Update, and this seems like a fairly routine performance upgrade.

(MioTheGreat said @ #6.1)
That email was from 2003, and was about the Microsoft download site. They're currently redesigning that site with Silverlight.


This is about Windows Update, and this seems like a fairly routine performance upgrade.

The email contained experience issues both for Windows Update, and Microsoft Downloads at Microsoft.com.

Yes, the email was from 2003, but got a significant amount of attention last week in both the tech media and the general media, as, indeed, many of the issues the issues he brought up, are still valid and extant today, thus making it what is called "contemporary" - and while I agree its most likely just a matter of timing coincidence, its not unreasonable to wonder if indeed there was some impact on the release of timing of the update itself, or the blog info itself.

(Airlink said @ #7)
This is hardly news. Microsoft rolls out updates to Windows Update like this semi-regularly. Excuse me while I shrug.

Really? When was the last time they pre-announced scanning performance improvements "like this" on their "blog"?

I'm sure that happened just a couple months ago, and you'll be providing the specific details of those prior Windows Update performance improvement blog announcements when you get done "shrugging"..

Thank God! Windows Update takes ages to scan first time with 57 updates then for SP1, they should add improvements for the SP1 Scanning as sometimes it takes like 5 retrys to get it to display!

Commenting is disabled on this article.