January 5, 2012 at 9:28 am
jcrawf02 (1/5/2012)
Steve, do you test your Chrome updates before applying?
Never know when they apply. When I started writing this, I was at 15, apparently now 16.
I don't use Chrome for a lot. There are a few things that it doesn't do well, so it's a spare browser for me for one particular site.
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
Steve Smith-307669 (1/5/2012)
Suppose, for a second, that you have only one browser installed on your computer (pretend it's IE 9.0.0.1873). The automatic update comes, upgrades it to 9.0.0.1875, but it BREAKS the browser. You are sunk. You can't download anything to fix, because your browser is broken.So the lesson here is, I think, you need more than one browser. But Microsoft better be very careful with these updates.
Definitely a problem. I keep multiple browsers, but some companies don't allow that. I think that the first time a "bad" update comes down, MS is in for a lot of bad press.
Keep in mind, however, that with VMs (and tech people should have VMs), you can restart another machine and potentially fix things there. However if all you can get is the latest, patched, broken version, what do you do?
January 5, 2012 at 9:32 am
TravisDBA (1/5/2012)
Auto-Updates IMHO are generally a BAD idea and the reasons are plentiful, just google it and see all the reasons, but here are just a few to start:Sometimes updates happen at inconvenient times.
Some updates are flawed.
Some times your system is updated in a way that you may not like.
Some old features that you like are removed or replaced.
😀
It's a double edged sword for sure. The flip side is manual updates often result in lots of other problems.
January 5, 2012 at 9:34 am
All new machines are coming in with IE9, yet we have an important product from a major vendor with does not work with IE9 (the vendor says a couple more months yet). So we have to put Firefox on those users computers in the interim.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 5, 2012 at 9:40 am
My company is very similar to other large corporations that carefully test general updates before they are rolled out to the desktop. The reason for this is that we administer a very heterogeous environment with mixed configurations. Not every employee has Windows 7. Some of our applications cannot even run on Windows 7 and automatic updates tend to 'introduce unexpected results' (pronounced 'break') to our workflow.
I do not even allow automatic application of updates to my home machine. I allow the machine to download them, but then I pick and choose what I want installed. I do not allow MS to update my drivers as invariably I lose my network card when I have done so in the past.
I do not want updates to be too slow, but when it comes to stability in my work flow, I do not wish to be bleeding edge either.
Bestest!
January 5, 2012 at 9:47 am
jmiceli (1/5/2012)
...I do not even allow automatic application of updates to my home machine. I allow the machine to download them, but then I pick and choose what I want installed. I do not allow MS to update my drivers as invariably I lose my network card when I have done so in the past.
I do not want updates to be too slow, but when it comes to stability in my work flow, I do not wish to be bleeding edge either.
Bestest!
My feeling exactly. I download, but I then wait a few days, google for issues, and then install.
January 6, 2012 at 7:45 am
It depends. 😛
As a developer, it makes things easier because for the most part you can finally write for standards compliance and there are fewer "gotchas" to go back and deal with. However, I am currently going through some on-line training courses that seem to only work in IE and do not appear to work in version 9. For that reason, I have hidden the IE9 update from Microsoft Update, at least until I finish this series.
--Andrew
January 6, 2012 at 2:11 pm
As long as the auto-update is not Server software or OS software then I am ok with the auto-updates. I would prefer that it be configurable. Chrome does it fairly decent because you don't even notice for the most part - until something breaks anyway.
I absolutely hate it at the OS level. I can see why they may try to do it. But not all updates are required for all systems and it needs to be configurable there and something that the user can test and rollback.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 6, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/5/2012)
jmiceli (1/5/2012)
...I do not even allow automatic application of updates to my home machine. I allow the machine to download them, but then I pick and choose what I want installed. I do not allow MS to update my drivers as invariably I lose my network card when I have done so in the past.
I do not want updates to be too slow, but when it comes to stability in my work flow, I do not wish to be bleeding edge either.
Bestest!
My feeling exactly. I download, but I then wait a few days, google for issues, and then install.
That method has saved me some serious grief a couple of times. There's a reason why they call it "the Bleeding Edge". 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply