Vista To Be Updated Without Reboots

UltimaGuy writes "Microsoft is working on a new feature for Windows Vista, known as Restart Manager, which will update parts of the operating system or applications without having to reboot the entire machine. From the article: 'If a part of an application, or the operating system itself, needs to updated, the Installer will call the Restart Manager, which looks to see if it can clear that part of the system so that it can be updated. If it can do that, it does, and that happens without a reboot.'"

Comments

funny department

[pohl]

"from the welcome-to-the-world-of-tomorrow dept"? More like welcome to unix of yesteryear. What's with the kid that always crosses the finish line last and somehow always gets perceived as the leader?

Re:funny department

[kuzb]

I dub the parent comment "Welcome to the flame of today". This isn't about unix, nor is it about competing with Unix. This is about fixing a long-standing user complaint. Why must there always be a comparison? Another fine example of "it doesn't matter how many problems get fixed, we'll be here to bitch about it anyway"

Re:funny department

[MSFanBoi2]

Look, we ain't talking about Unix or Linux here, we are talking about Windows.

Windows wasn't able to do this before, now it is.

What with the kid that keeps thinking that Windows and UNIX are the same and features in each have to mirror each other.

Re:funny department

[MightyMartian]

The point, other than a bit of chest beating, is to demonstrate that Microsoft loves to ooze BS about innovation, but when you look at what they do, it's been around for a long bloody time./

Re:funny department

[IAmTheDave]

More to the point, it's not even that relevant. MS can install updates without reboots too, like the latest .NET Framework 1.1 update for instance, which unlike the original install of the framework, didn't require a reboot on my PC. Heck, Windows Update often runs without rebooting.

Read the fine print:

...which looks to see if it can clear that part of the system so that it can be updated. If it can do that, it does, and that happens without a reboot.

And if it CAN'T clear that part of the system? <mentok voice>REBOOT!</mentok voice>

So, I'm not sure how this is much different than before, aside from Vista will try to unload unused system dlls as well as non-system dlls?

Re:funny department

[ZakMcCracken]

Yes, well, with today's Unix infrastructure you can do remote server access, but can you do remote *desktop* access?

Sure you can adapt server tools like X11 to do remote access, but then remote desktop involves more: can you see your local hard drive from the applications on the desktop machine that you're remoting into? Can you see your local printer, so the printouts come where you are by default and not on the printer that is connected to the remote PC? Can you hear sounds played by applications when you remote into a PC?

Same thing with fast user switching... many people said, on Linux you have long been able to open many virtual consoles under different identities... Just Ctrl+Fn between them... Ah yes but what happens when you switch consoles? Notice how it doesn't ask for your password? Which makes it applicable in many settings, contrary to the Mac or Windows versions of fast user switching which do ask for password. Feature comes in late, but right.

As to changing OS components while running... Sure, Linux has had kernel modules, FreeBSD has had a microkernel... but is there a tool to automate dependency checking, to see which services need to be shut down, to actually shut them down / unload modules, and then relaunch services?

Unix OS's "can do" a lot of things, if you accept that many of the capabilities are pushed out of the OS onto the end-user. Actually if you start thinking this way, coding pure assembly in kernel mode actually has the most features!!

Re:funny department

[NotoriousQ]

Except this already happens anyway. When a library is replaced the original is deleted, but the content still hangs around until all programs that rely on that library close, at which point the file system deletes the content.

All programs that start after library has been updated use the updated version.

The main issue is that in windows, two files can not exist under the same name (no concept of linking). (well, sort of. I am not sure if NTFS streams can be used for this.)

Re:funny department

[man_of_mr_e]

Weeks? The idea behind an in-place patch is because of some security flaw. You don't want the old version hanging around for weeks. If there's a security vulnerability, I want to restart ALL of the services that use it immediately.

Re:funny department

[pikine]

This is essentially what Unix does, but not many people understand this.

What happens when you upgrade a package?

1. Package manager removes the files of the old package.
2. Package manager unpacks files from a new package.
3. Repeat until all packages are upgraded.

When an opened file is removed from the file system, its directory entry is removed, but the inode stays on disk as long as the file stays open. So old libraries remain on disk as long as old programs are using them, which essentially creates a parallel world of different library versions---one accessible from the file system, and the other accessible from existing running programs with open file descriptors. When the program restarts, it then uses the new library.

Finally..

[yamcha666]

Finally! How long have we been waiting for something like this in a Windows system? Granted, UNIX/Linux/etc has had it forever and I love it that I don't have to reboot every time I install, for example, a cd burner app in Linux. So why should I have to reboot when I install something like Nero? Or anything besides the kernel or hardware for that matter?

Linux: Because rebooting is for adding hardware.

Oh, Lordy!

[overshoot]

From the description it sounds complicated as all get out. Doing dependency checks in real time while the system is running, unlinking in-use libraries, etc.

It has "fragile" written all over it.

I suppose that there are reasons why Microsoft can't just leave an inode in place after unlinking it so that processes that use it don't lose it, but is this really the best workaround they can come up with?

Re:I'll believe it

[Not The Real Me]

Win2K was supposed to have the restart without reboot.
WinXP was supposed to have the restart without reboot feature.

The only way I can see Vista as having this feature is if Microsoft finally includes signalling (ala Unix/Linux and most other professional operating systems).