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

[theantipop]

Maybe it's sarcasm? No, that's unpossible Slashdot is to regard all matters with the utmost of seriousness.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with the kid that always crosses the finish line last and somehow always gets perceived as the leader?

Why does every topic have to come down to politics and the Bush administration?

Re:funny department

[dtfinch]

"In a small way, Windows NT is a Unix." -Bill Gates

Re:funny department

[edwdig]

Except the Vista implementation is better.

Unix systems gladly replace system libraries that are in use, and just hope that not problems happen because two different versions of the same library are in use simultaneously. The further away from the core libraries you get, the lower the odds of a problem, but it's still a risk. The Unix approach is basically "Let's just go ahead and do it, it'll probably be ok."

Windows takes the safe approach of only updating libraries that are not in use. I'm sure you'd wind up with weird glitches if your apps were using multiple versions of GDI simultaneously. The Windows approach is "It may be ok to update this now, or it may not. Just to be safe, let's not update it until we can guarentee it's safe."

The Vista implementation is going to try to free up libraries, and if it can, will then update them in place. If not, you'll still have to reboot.

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.

Re:funny department

[Tim C]

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.

Not quite - it's more general than that. When a file that an application has open is deleted, the link to it is removed (so you can't see it any more, nothing else can access it, etc) but the data is left in place and any file handles remain valid. Once the last handle to it is closed, then the inodes are marked as being free.

That's the case for *any* file, be it a library, an mp3, a text file, etc.

For what it's worth, I can see situations in which replacing a library that's in use could be problematic. If you start another instance of the app that's using it, for example, and the library that's changed defines a communications protocol, then you may well have problems if the two instances try to communicate. That may be relatively ok if it's an instant message system, but not so good if it's something more critical like an RDBMS. Not likely, perhaps, but not impossible.

The main issue is that in windows, two files can not exist under the same name (no concept of linking).

The same is true of Linux. In the case of deleting a file that's in use and replacing it with a new copy, there are not two files with the same name. There is one file with the name, and an area of data that is no longer linked to. That area of data *used* to have that name, but doesn't any longer.

When deleting a file that's in use, an OS has three options:

1. Delete it anyway and damn the consequences
2. Delete it but keep the data available for the application(s) using it (the Linux way)
3. Prevent deletion of the file (the Windows way)

Note that 3 isn't the only way it works under Windows, it depends how the file was opened. For example, WMP is perfectly happy to allow you to delete media files while you're playing them, notepad is fine with text files disappearing out from under it, etc.

Re:funny department

[mrdaveb]

When there was a vulnerability in PHP, I killed everybody because I wasen't sure

Isn't that a bit drastic?

No Reboot

[faqmaster]

There is no reboot, just a breif BSOD, then you're back at teh login screen.

Fixing DLL management... what a novel concept

[KiltedKnight]

I guess now the D really will stand for Dynamic.

Part of the problem has always been that their DLL manager couldn't clean itself up without a reboot.

Re:Fixing DLL management... what a novel concept

[Krach42]

The windows DLL manager has been able to clean up after itself. The problem was that until Vista, everything has been tied in tight together, with a lot of integration between components, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell what could be restarted, and avoid the reboot.

Vista now uses much better compontentization, and this allows them to actually know what components were affected by an upgrade, and need to be restarted.

In the *nix world, everything's been compontentized from the start, and so naturally you were able to restart services instead of the whole machine fro mthe beginning.

Linux

[phulshof]

Damn! We should copy this feature into Linux! oh, wait....

Re:Linux

[jonesy16]

The slashdot crowd once again rears its ugly "i'm a linux zealot so I'll say anything against windows and for linux even if it's not true" head. I'm a regular user of both Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux. BOTH operating systems support killing and restarting MOST services without taking down the entire computer, as well as OSX. BOTH operating systems will let you dynamically load and unload hardware drivers without a reboot. BOTH operating systems will allow you to change your network configuration without requiring a reboot. BOTH operating systems require a reboot for kernel modifications. Windows requires a reboot for core DLL files since it doesn't have a runlevel 3 to drop back to like Linux does. But for all intensive purposes, if I have to shut down all services as well as X-windows, I'm not that close to being any better off. As other users have pointed out, don't blame Microsoft for the software maker's innability to report when a reboot is actually required or not. Linux never tells you when you "should" reboot unless you've installed a new kernel, it just blindly assumes you're ok, when sometimes you are not. This was also pointed out for OSX, whose update manager usually suggests a reboot even though the OS is capable of surviving without it. I can also tell you from personal experience that you can offer to "reboot later" and continue using the newly installed software with no problem most of the time. The difference in these approaches is that when grandma and grandpa install something and windows doesn't reboot for them and a conflict arises, they're left with a blue screen of death and can't understand what happened. When a linux user updates but doesn't restart X, and then applications start hanging, he/she knows, "oh, guess I just have to restart, that was my fault." When the general public isn't well educated and is using your software, you just do what's safest for them.

The question

[ScottSCY]

I think it still might be a better idea to reboot to linux and go from there :-)

As an IT Employee...

[ehaggis]

What will I do all day long now?

Re:As an IT Employee...

[SimReg]

Same thing you do now - read and post to Slashdot!

Ready for the desktop

[cactux]

So, with this new feature, will windows be ready for the desktop? Because it is years now that we hear "this year is THE year, it is ready for the desktop !"

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?

An integral part...

[zecg]

...of the new Restart Manager is the Dolby Stereo 5.1 system. It checks whether it can update without reboot, sees that there's no fucking way, then plays a sound behind your back - you turn and presto! - no reeboot needed!

Re:Wow... Took only 30 years to catch up...

[joshv]

Not being able to kill services in not a limitation of windows, it's a limitation of the task manager. Use Sysinternal's Process Explorer - it will let you kill any process, even if doing so will crash windows.

Re:Lets get it out of the way right now....

[prockcore]

How is this new, my {Unix| Mac| Linux} system has done this for years

Your mac most definitely has not done this for years. Even updating Safari requires a reboot on OSX. My mac can't go a week without Software Update asking for a reboot.

Oh, UNIX has had "Restart...

[cnelzie]

...Managers" for a very long time. They are usually hairy, sometimes suffer from poor hygeine or halitosis or stinky feat syndrome. Sometimes they are cranky and short-tempered, but fill them with enough pizza, Mountain Dew and Coffee and they usually work things right.

    They are typically called System Administrators.

Microsoft acts like a kid.

[windowpain]

I wish the hell they would just make the the damned thing more stable in the first place.

Microsoft acts like a kid who won't eat his vegetables, won't do his homework, won't clean up after himself and won't take out the garbage and yells, "Hey, hey Ma look! I can balance a beachball on my nose! Aren't you proud of what a clever boy I am?"

I'd like to take Billg by the hair and tell him, "No Windows Vista for you young man until you fix all the broken crap in XP! And stop making faces at cousin Linus."

Re:Microsoft acts like a kid.

[Namronorman]

As much as we'd like some software companies to just update our current products it's unlikely that it'll happen. For you see, giving updates for free is not where the money is at, especially when you have an astronomical user base.

It's that way with a lot of things, for example I have a Wireless card that was sold AFTER the release of WPA but its drivers were never updated to work with WPA because they decided to abandon a perfectly fine card. If you contact the company they'll admit it no problem, they know they can get away with it and make even more money by doing something else.

For a lot of companies money comes before security. Unfortunately, thanks to a large ignorant user base (not everyone, but the majority), this is a perfectly fine business model for them.

Yes, but will it ask permission first?

[David Hume]

Wow... Took only 30 years to catch up...

The only thing is that now anybody will be able to do it and not just some geeks. Show me any mommies and daddies out there can do this with Linux and I will show you a geek.

Yes, but will it ask permission first? Or even allow you to decide whether it will ask permission first? Even if it does, what will the default setting be?

At least when one had to reboot to update, one could usually make an informed choice whether to interupt one's work, close everything, and reboot. One can only assume that the "update without reboot" process will not be without risk. That is not a slam against MS; software isn't perfect. One way we deal with such imperfection is by minimizing the consequences of a crash or fault.

What if "update without reboot" is, in the name of consumer friendliness, as well as in the supposed interest of the "mommies and daddies out there," both automatic and invisible, and something goes wrong and/or is corrupted in the middle of a vastly important project?

There is safety in being forced to reboot. It means you aren't doing something else.

A "Restart Manager"? How typical.

[Art Tatum]

Why is it that every Microsoft solution involves a "manager"? They never seem to get to the point and just fix a problem. Instead, we get these grandiose stacks of hierarchy. It's like the French government is behind every design decision.

It'll never happen

[UnknowingFool]

Call me a pessimistic, but I put this one in snowball's chance in hell likelihood. I mean, it's just as likely as the Israelis giving up Gaza Strip, the Red Sox and White Sox winning World Series, and Oprah appearing on the Late Show with Dave Letterman. And we all know those things won't happen.

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).

Great job, Microsoft!

[wbren]

Now if they could only make it so I don't have to restart Firefox every time I install a new extension.

Oops, wrong company...

But seriously, why do people criticize Microsoft so much for requiring occasional reboots when a much simpler application, Firefox, requires a restart every time an extension is installed. It seems like a browser extension would be much easier to load on-the-fly than an update to a core part of an operating system, so why not harp on Firefox? Is it because it isn't a Microsoft product? There are plenty of threads in this story's comments bashing Microsoft, saying it's about time they got their act together regarding reboots, etc. But what if Mozilla suddenly announced Firefox 1.5.1 would be able to load extensions on-the-fly? Everyone would cheer for Firefox and sing praises of such an innovative new feature. This story just reminded me of the double standard regarding Microsoft and, well, everyone that isn't Microsoft.

This new Windows feature sounds cool and it doesn't. I don't really care about rebooting, to be honest. It takes 30 seconds of my time (big deal). Stop adding things like this to Vista and just get it done and shipped. I'm still not going to use Vista for moral (DRM) reasons, but still... there must be some people who want it done sooner rather than later.