Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Microsoft Looks to Overhaul Windows Update

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 21 comments
Tags :

Your Windows Update is getting updated.

An update will be coming soon for, appropriately enough, Windows Update and Microsoft Update. The update will appear in late August, and it will take a couple of months to complete the rollout.

Microsoft wrote in the TechNet blog, "This update will not change your current Windows Update or Automatic Updates settings. It will improve the user interface for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 computers running Windows Update, adding a more visible and detailed description of updates as well as improvements in how users are notified about service packs. This update will not change the look and feel of Automatic Updates."

The update is mandatory for those who wish to stay up to date with the latest patches and fixes. Grabbing the update is easy as it will come as a part of Windows Update. Keep an eye out for it starting next month. Read more about it here.

Discuss
Display all 21 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -6 Hide
    jacobdrj , July 13, 2009 10:47 PM
    If it makes XP like Vista/7, great! Vista/7 do a good job on WU. Big improvement over XP/2k/98.
  • 7 Hide
    dafin0 , July 13, 2009 11:07 PM
    jacobdrjIf it makes XP like Vista/7, great! Vista/7 do a good job on WU. Big improvement over XP/2k/98.


    this isn't for win XP
  • 3 Hide
    apache_lives , July 13, 2009 11:13 PM
    hang on, it will "will improve the user interface for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008" yet it will not "change the look and feel of Automatic Updates" ???

    WTF?
  • 1 Hide
    chookman , July 13, 2009 11:31 PM
    "It will improve the user interface for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 computers running Windows Update"

    Doesn't sound like it will change XP at all, I would welcome a more detailed explanation of patches on the machine though :) 
  • 0 Hide
    doomtomb , July 13, 2009 11:50 PM
    apache_liveshang on, it will "will improve the user interface for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008" yet it will not "change the look and feel of Automatic Updates" ???WTF?

    Ya, I'm a little confused here. So what exactly is being changed about this?
  • 6 Hide
    acecombat , July 14, 2009 12:51 AM
    doomtombYa, I'm a little confused here. So what exactly is being changed about this?

    So manual updates will give more information, however if you choose Automatic Updates it just runs in the background like it normally would!
  • -3 Hide
    matt87_50 , July 14, 2009 12:51 AM
    heheh, i was installing windows live the other day, i gave up waiting when it got to the bit where it said "Installing installer..."
  • 1 Hide
    kato128 , July 14, 2009 1:25 AM
    My understanding of this is the description gets a bit longer and possibly the box gets a bit bigger. Big whoop, must be a slow news day.
  • -3 Hide
    rdawise , July 14, 2009 2:03 AM
    Did anyone else just get the feeling that Windows Updates are just going to take longer from this article.
  • -6 Hide
    computabug , July 14, 2009 2:26 AM
    It's not really going to benefit the user much, Microshit just prolly wants an excuse to update WGA to crack down on piraters...
  • -1 Hide
    Regulas , July 14, 2009 11:34 AM
    I can bet it has to to with DRM and pirating. Pretty soon you will need a DNA sample and fingerprint scanner before you can update.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , July 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    They say it like they're hiding something in this update, stuff like this is why I switched to Linux, if you distrust Linux, you can just review the source-code and compile it yourself... No need for the intrusive Windows security model ie: "sell somebody a house with no locks on the door, and advise them to hire a team of guards(antivirus) to constantly run around and monitor all the doors and windows". And of course, Linux' superior eye-candy it a total chick-magnet.
  • -1 Hide
    bfstev , July 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    how will this effect wsus?
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , July 14, 2009 2:57 PM
    I'm still doing my updates manually, and prefer it that way.
    I can hardly imagine an update being harder than on the xp's update.microsoft.com site.
    More then likely MS thought of blogging the page with more flash stuff that require (aka force) you to install silverlight, and slow down page loading.

    I'm really having a bad aftertaste ever since Windows Vista came out, and silverlight, and the memory hog Internet explorer 6, and wonder if MS has their priorities right, or if they want to aim 'all for the user experience' by coloring the screen full of moving pictures and visual arts that at all not benefit the update experience, and instead decrease many people's user experience by having them to wait longer for page refreshing?

    I mean I know it makes sense,and I don't know how far MS has corrected themselves of their past mistakes, but every time I read something in the likes of "MS did an improvement" article, I can't help but having these thoughts pop in my mind.

    Especially now that Win7 is almost a Vista clone, makes me wonder if I'm still on the same track as MS...
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , July 14, 2009 2:59 PM
    rdawiseDid anyone else just get the feeling that Windows Updates are just going to take longer from this article.

    Exactly my thoughts too!
  • 1 Hide
    michaelahess , July 14, 2009 3:02 PM
    I just love how some machines for no particular reason go to 100% cpu when doing updates, the svchost process is killing it. And then it takes 10 minutes to figure out a list of updates it needs when it's all in a simple file anyway. This should take about 20 seconds on even old computers. WU has gotten slower and slower every year.
  • -1 Hide
    bourgeoisdude , July 14, 2009 3:49 PM
    My guess is that they're changing it to look like Windows 7, which isn't much change at all. Like it says: it just has a little more detail to it.
  • 0 Hide
    cracklint , July 14, 2009 4:37 PM
    Hope it doesn't check for legitimate installation of vista
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , July 14, 2009 4:43 PM
    michaelahessI just love how some machines for no particular reason go to 100% cpu when doing updates, the svchost process is killing it. And then it takes 10 minutes to figure out a list of updates it needs when it's all in a simple file anyway. This should take about 20 seconds on even old computers. WU has gotten slower and slower every year.


    The flip side is that there's a lot more to updates these days.
    On WinNT you could go to the windows update website,and just download another service pack and install it like a program.
    But these days, MS secures it's updates by a genuine or certified script, they back up old data for recovery or rollback purposes, they check every dll file on it's fileversion (as to in the old days one could actually revert a specific updated DLL to a previous one).
    there's also a log generated when files did not succeed in installing,etc...

    I know there's more to installations today, than before. Yet not all of this is necessary. Visual effects are the furthest from being necessary I believe.
  • 0 Hide
    jacobdrj , July 14, 2009 7:45 PM
    I know. I said "If it makes XP like Vista/7, great!" If not, the contrary is true: Changing WU for Vista/7 is pointless IMHO. They actually did a good job on WU for Vista/7.
Display more comments