Windows Update

[method77]

I just found five new "critical" updates. Make sure you check your windows version.

Dudeasincool there is nothing to see here ;)

[Umma]

Dudeasincool there is nothing to see here ;)

:rotfl:

[Wolfie]

Windows site feels like the checkout at walmart today!!!

Eveyone and thier uncle is trying to connect.

[Stuzb]

I think, instead of the stupid taskbar-mounted windows globe thingy proudly announcing that there are 'updates to install', I think it should just say something simple like 'we fucked up - click here and we'll put it half-right'

Obviously, the word 'again' could be inserted after the word 'up' to add more accuracy to the statement, but you get the idea.

I do think it's clever the way M$ market them as 'updates', when most of the time it's a fix for an error or bug that wouldn't exist if Windows was coded and tested properly.

Oh well, when you've got a monopoly, these are the liberties you can take.

[method77]

I mostly agree with you dude but there is no way to ever get a perfect software. Windows is popular therefore open to more "attacks".

[Stuzb]

there is no way to ever get a perfect software

Depends on the definition of 'perfect'

To be error-free is easily possible - after all, computers only understand 2 things - '1' and '0'. So if you make a program and there's an error in it, then at it's most basic level you've either not accounted for converting an input into one of the two states, or you've instructed your software to do something stupid once it's in that state.

However, if by 'perfect' you're referring to software that can do everything I want in a way I find easy to use and in a timescale that suits me, then I agree, 'perfect' isn't always possible.

My firm belief is that, unfortunately, M$ falls into the first definition of imperfect, and because there's little competition, it get's away with being coded in a way that isn't fault-free.

To my mind, the fact that it's popular, should make Microsoft even more wary of the quality of it's products, and make it's testing procedures even more rigorous so that more exceptions can be handled in a more acceptable way.

However, to be slightly fair to M$, it's operating systems sometimes rely on third-parties to provide an error-free solution (drivers and firmware for periperals, coding in web pages, anti-virus software etc) that M$ doesn't always have the capability nor licensing power to change, and in a number of instances it may well be the falibility of these third-party solutions that cause the collapse of Windows.

Eitherways, M$, IMO, could and should do more, but they don't.

[slum_goddess]

Eitherways, M$, IMO, could and should do more, but they don't.

*cue rant: if M$ built cars like they build OSs* this entire subject is coming out of my ears but masochist i am, i can't stop myself from reading. :(