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

[markwolfe Veteran]

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.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this sort of thing in my earlier post.

... 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.

Yup. I did. :)

Proprietary stuff can be shared, as long as the licensing and copyright issues are dealt with. Or ignored, I suppose. :shiftyninja:

[Subject Delta]

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.

Not to mention, if they didn't employ some complex digital signing mechanism it would be possible for dodgy software makers to incorporate malware into their 'updates'

[RvXtm]

It would be nice, but as said up , this would introduce new problems and potential security issues. And i don't think Microsoft is capable of creating a "Consistent Experience" , they should learn the word consistency first ,then try to apply it .

[Lechio]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this sort of thing in my earlier post.

Yup. I did. :)

Proprietary stuff can be shared, as long as the licensing and copyright issues are dealt with. Or ignored, I suppose. :shiftyninja:

Microsoft does not need (and should not) provide the contents, just the tool and allow others to use it.

And Mark try this as an example, install Opera 10 Beta (the Ubuntu package) from here:

http://www.opera.com/browser/download/?ver=10.00b1

the Opera repo will be added to the apt sources. How cool is that? :)

[Andre S. Veteran]

An update API, some kind of conventional interface for updating software, definitely. It's such a mess right now; every company has its own method and the user has to put up with all that diversity.

But making Windows Update universal, impossible. There are litteraly countless PCs running countless hardware and software configurations, it's simply impossible to provide a consistent, reliable user experience for every application for every hardware and software configuration. It's up to individual software companies to provide and test updates, not Microsoft.

I think the comparison with Linux has its limits because Windows is much more desktop-oriented and diverse than Linux, which is centered on servers running simple configurations maintained by professionals. It's not the same issues and not at the same scale at all. Linux users are generally much more technically literate than Windows users.

[Lechio]

I think the comparison with Linux has its limits because Windows is much more desktop-oriented and diverse than Linux, which is centered on servers running simple configurations maintained by professionals. It's not the same issues and not at the same scale at all. Linux users are generally much more technically literate than Windows users.

Allow me to disagree on that Dr_Asik. Linux distributions oriented towards the desktop are very easy to use and maintain. Your point was valid a few years ago, but not anymore. Linux is at a different stage right now. Just think of something like the netbooks powered by Linux.

[jakem1]

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?

Microsoft have already done this in .Net. It's called ClickOnce deployment and the only difference is that it works at the application level rather than across all applications.

A ClickOnce application can be installed from a website/network share and configured to check for updates each time it starts. If a new version of the application is available then it's downloaded and installed automatically. Developers don't have to do too much to set this up as it forms part of the solution configuration in Visual Studio.

Also, security concerns are dealt with because the application is installed per user.

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce

[Lechio]

Microsoft have already done this in .Net. It's called ClickOnce deployment and the only difference is that it works at the application level rather than across all applications.

A ClickOnce application can be installed from a website/network share and configured to check for updates each time it starts. If a new version of the application is available then it's downloaded and installed automatically. Developers don't have to do too much to set this up as it forms part of the solution configuration in Visual Studio.

Also, security concerns are dealt with because the application is installed per user.

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce

It's a better way of doing it, but doesn't differ much from the normal updater. Plus, the application in question has to be running for it to update.

[jakem1]

It's a better way of doing it, but doesn't differ much from the normal updater. Plus, the application in question has to be running for it to update.

That's true but at least it satisfies some of the criteria that people have mentioned in this thread:

a) it doesn't require an additional application or service to update

b) it runs when the application starts thus ensuring that the application is always up to date (i.e. you don't need to wait for the update to come down to you through WU)

Also, everything is in place for developers to take advantage of today. The only downside is that they would need to have the infrastructure in place to serve up the updates.

[ichi]

Proprietary stuff can be shared, as long as the licensing and copyright issues are dealt with. Or ignored, I suppose. :shiftyninja:

Or third party repositories added by the installer if the software developer is willing to take advantage or that feature.

[ichi]

But making Windows Update universal, impossible. There are litteraly countless PCs running countless hardware and software configurations, it's simply impossible to provide a consistent, reliable user experience for every application for every hardware and software configuration. It's up to individual software companies to provide and test updates, not Microsoft.

But the thing is it could be done without MS providing anything but the API.

Think of something like Linux package managers where each software company could add their own repositories when you install their software. The MS update program would then also check their ftp (or whatever) and fetch updates if needed.

A ClickOnce application can be installed from a website/network share and configured to check for updates each time it starts. If a new version of the application is available then it's downloaded and installed automatically.

The last thing I want an app to do when I open it is to keep me waiting until it updates. It would get even more annoying on Windows since it's unable to overwrite files that are in use.

Also if we were talking about a critical security update you would surely prefer apply the update before even running the vulnerable app, wouldn't you?

[Comic Book Guy]

Have you ever thought of posting this to any of MS's official Windows forums?

[Ci7]

But the thing is it could be done without MS providing anything but the API.

Think of something like Linux package managers where each software company could add their own repositories when you install their software. The MS update program would then also check their ftp (or whatever) and fetch updates if needed.

The last thing I want an app to do when I open it is to keep me waiting until it updates. It would get even more annoying on Windows since it's unable to overwrite files that are in use.

Also if we were talking about a critical security update you would surely prefer apply the update before even running the vulnerable app, wouldn't you?

and possibly manipulated to download Virii/malware .

no thanks

[ichi]

and possibly manipulated to download Virii/malware .

CRC. You would have to fake both the repositories and the signatures.

If you were to manipulate the list of repositories you would have to run malware first anyway, and once you have that stuff running repositories would be the least of your concerns. You would be infected already.

[Sylar0]

Don't forget some people don't want their apps to update automatically for instance my mum still has the second to latest windows live messenger because she simply doesn't want to update. I would be all for an auto update tool but not via windows update it would be too crowed. Also I would only like this as a windows user if i can maintain control of what is updated and when. PS I'm a windows user and only a windows user long live windows if the whole world was on Linux we would have a problem because everyone would be running a different distro.