__/ [ Roy Schestowitz ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 08:08 \__
> __/ [ AB ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 07:20 \__
>
>> On 2007-04-04, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>> __/ [ Freeride ] on Wednesday 04 April 2007 04:33 \__
>>>
>>>> Why the fsck does every fricken single M$ patch require a reboot!! Does
>>>> Micro$oft not understand the massive pain in the ass that is required to
>>>> schedule and coordinate downtime with users and reboot 100's of servers
>>>> in a data center?
>>>
>>> As AB says, reboot Microsoft. I think that Vista is intended to permit
>>> updates without reboots, but I am not entirely sure (I don't use it).
>>
>> XP did that trick. The problem is many patches don't go into effect
>> until a reboot is done. So if you're trying to patch away a security
>> icky, you reboot or else.
>>
>> I have serious doubts that Vista has changed that. They more than
>> likely have suppressed the nag dialog instead.
>
> A quick Web search brought this up:
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1895276,00.asp
>
> I'm not sure what they mean by "parts". Also, given the date, this feature
> may have been lost. It was month before they "reboot" the development of
> Longhorn (later to become Windows XP/2003 Server, then renamed "Vista"). So
> the answer here is "I don't know"...
Correction: the article was published a few month /after/, not before,
Ballmer's "we needed reboot" or "development collapse". Maybe it's one among
the very few features that made it into Vista, which was developed in just 6
months (not 5-6 years as they would like you to believe) and tested for 9
(nowhere near long enough).
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Holey (sic) Cow! Longhorn is full of holes...
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 482384k used, 32096k free, 4236k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
