Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Patches Go For Quality Over Quantity?

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-we-have-both dept.

greengrass writes "eWeek.com is running a story about another Microsoft 'study'. This one discusses how good Microsoft is at providing patches for their OS. This is Part 2 of 3 in a series of articles, the first of which compared Linux and Windows on legacy systems." From the article: "Bill Hilf, who is director of Platform Technology Strategy at Microsoft and heads its Linux and open-source lab, told eWEEK in a recent interview that 'the differentiator for customers is not the number comparison, but which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage.'"

4 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Debian by Spazmania · · Score: 0, Redundant

    which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage

    Yeah, that would be Debian Linux: "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade". No reboot required and nothing breaks.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  2. In Other News... by MikeyTheK · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Crack-addicted strippers announced that their new focus isn't on the quality of their appearance, or the quantity of time you get, but how easy they were once you forked over your $200 and donned your virus protection. In addition, they pointed out that free sex with, say, some hot chick you meet at a party is overvalued compared to sex with them because they are professionals with experience and know-how that you just can't get from your average, ordinary girl.

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
  3. Easier? by beezly · · Score: 0, Redundant
    From the article;

    "...which vendor makes the patching and updating experience the least complex, most efficient and easiest to manage"



    apt-get update
    apt-get upgrade


    It doesn't get much easier than that.
  4. IE6, MP9 and DX9c aren't in a real SP5 by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 0, Redundant
    You're exaggerating on how many patches are installed per reboot cycle. The process is like this:

    Install Windows 2000 Pro with Service Pack 4 already Slipstreamed.

    Install Internet Explorer 6 (reboot)

    Install "Rollup 1" which is what SP5 would have been. (reboot)

    Install all post-Rollup patches. This means all patches after April 2005. (reboot)

    Install DirectX 9C

    Install Media Player 9

    Install post DX9 and post MP9 patches (why these aren't being installed patched is beyond me! reboot)

    Install final set of patches if they remain. (reboot)

    Create disk image for rolling out to other systems of the same model.

    You can get around Windows 2000/XP's inability to boot on other motherboards by changing the IDE controller to the MS Standard driver and then making the image, but it doesn't always work. Doing a repair install will remove you patches and in some cases require the install media for other programs (Easy CD/DVD 6, etc).

    So yes, Windows 2000 is being phased out by Microsoft and is likely being kept in this state of endless patches in the hope that IT Directors will see how long it takes (because IE6, MP9 and DX9 aren't in a real SP5) and just move to Windows XP Pro.