Today’s global cybersecurity threats are both dynamic and sophisticated, and new vulnerabilities are discovered almost every day. We focus on protecting customers from these security threats by providing security updates on a timely basis and with high quality. We strive to help you keep your Windows devices, regardless of which version of Windows they are running, up to date with the latest monthly quality updates to help mitigate the evolving threat landscape.
That is why, today, as part of our series of blogs on the Windows approach to quality, I’ll share an overview of how we deliver these critical updates on a massive scale as a key component of our ongoing Windows as a service effort.
After Microsoft’s recent stumbles with Windows updates, the company has been putting out a number of blog posts about how it approaches updates. This particular blog post explains some of the inside baseball on the various categories updates get placed in, as well as the various tests the company runs to ensure updates are safe and reliable – exactly the area where Microsoft has been failing lately.
what they are doing is next to useless. Quality starts at the top of the organisation. Nothing has been done to fix the fundamental issues with the whole windows update eco-system. Both Linux and MacOS do a far better job of updating systems than Windows has ever done.
Most IT Pros have seen the Windows Update process taking 100% of the CPU and sitting for hour after hour doing nothing. No network traffic but 100% CPU, fans going full pelt…
The whole thing is broken and I don’t see any moves to fix it.
They could start by stopping forcing updates on us. Then let us mark things ‘do notupdate’ like Video drivers.
The question is will they change things or will they just put lipstick on a Pig and try to charge us $9.99/month for the pleasure of seeing a Pig with badly applied Lipstick?
Linux: break dependencies and shit, have to rescue the system from time to time, not for the faint hearten.
Mac: not at all, they have full control over the hardware, not even plenty of them, but fails too.
Microsoft: do pretty much a “push update and wait” that works quite like expected, beside some quirks.
Microsoft’s quality assurance:
‘It built without crashing this time? Great, ship it! We’ll let Home users beta test it. Fucker should’ve upgrade to Pro anyway.’
While I was disappointed with what happened around 1809, I hold no illusions about how easy or difficult Microsoft’s task is.
MS don’t have a captive audience like Apple, I sometimes suspect that many of Apple users I meet believe a system update requires new hardware.
Linux, while it has a similar if not even more diverse level of hardware diversity is far from perfect, so I wonder if there were as many Linux users as there are Windows users what the experience would be like. Being fair it probably would not be any better no matter what case can be made about different architectures.
So overall I have to give MS a thumbs up for at least trying to be a little more open. That article is pitched at relatively low level users to give them an idea of the numbers involved, and it is a reasonable place to start.
Edited 2018-12-18 21:07 UTC
Nonsense. http://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market-share/desktop/worldw…
Mac users are very proactive upgraders.
—————-
Yes hardware upgrades, without doubt they do so regularly no question about it.
It would be useful to know which are OS upgrades and which are new hardware purchases. There is no breakdown in that data it’s just a simple count.
Not so long ago our Apple users on our staff were telling each other not to upgrade OS because it would reduced battery life in both MacOS or iOS devices. They were alleging that Apple did this deliberately to force users into a hardware upgrade!
Edited 2018-12-20 04:22 UTC