Why does MS have so many fixes to their o/s software?

185 updates installed since SP1 in my case (Windows 7x64), not counting Office updates.

 

Yeap...It takes hours to Download and Install...(IF someone has Not an Image)

 

simple question with a simple answer.
we live in an imperfect world.

i think the root of the problem probably stems from the 'compartmentalisation' of MS. (now there's a word of the day )
the Media Player section does their bit
the Windows Explorer team does their bit
the MSE mob does theirs.... and so it goes.

and that's just the Redmond side of it, then factor in all the external players (itunes, AV software etc) and it must be a minefield to system test every detail.

Yes, they should all come together flawlessly, it's not like they haven't been doing so for the last 20 years.

i just think we should cut them a bit of slack, more often then not, it's pretty damn good (lets not bring up Vista)

 

Tell me about it, I just fixed a friends netbook that had Malware and Adware professional rogue and a fraudulent copy of windows 7 ultimate when it should have been windows 7 starter.
I returned it to factory image that took me 20 cups of coffee and a sleepless night to complete its updates and rid its bloatware.

 

Hi Notok:

I agree with you. I would be better off with evidence that only MS has we don't unless we worked in the enviroment. So I will never have evidence.

As far as what I hope to achieve is to maybe (faint hope) spur them to do better on quality control and to not make repeated errors. MS would know or should know which are repeats.

I'm not complaining that is a waste of time, I raised a question set only and it has generated a pretty good discussing.

 

This is the mechanism how Microsoft delivers reliable, safe, current, software, etc, to you. Frankly, I don't quite catch the real impetus of this thread, so that was my .02 Windows Update defined.

 

Take a look at THIS ...

 

Windows is a giant piece of software which doesn't have an enemy (competition) on desktop market.

 

Thanks and happy new year!

The impetus was just my question. Why so many...

My motivation (naive) is to try for less updates to o/s and better quality programming. That's it. I'm not out to bash m/s (waste of time) complain about download speeds none of that is of personal interest.

I do have a premise here that they can do better and avoid the vast % of repeating errors. Read the documentation, a remote connection may be able to do x, y z....

 

Lack/smaller number of updates does not necessarily indicate better quality/programming/coding. Programs (which are smaller when compared to an OS) can get frequent updates to fix bugs, security issues and bring general improvements. I don't see why MS should be an exception.

Windows has lots more code and it tries to fit in for more usage purposes. As much as we'd like to see them 'learn from mistakes', MS does make compromises with their design choices (e.g. UAC default settings in Win7 vs Vista, services which have negative reputation in terms of security but still enabled by default, etc))

MS may have acquired experience throughout the years but fact remains there's no possible way they can foresee all problems (with different hardware config, vast library of programs, etc)

 

Because of so much bloat they can not keep up with it all themselves

 

I personally think they do a great job already, considering the number of users out there and the number of various machines all with different hardware and the variety of software with potential conflicts and issues and on and on.

Ordinarily, if you're updating an existing system, you'll just get a few updates a month, hardly noticeable. What's the big deal?

It's when you reformat and/or go back in time a long ways that you get a truckload of updates coming at you, and that is really to be expected.

Anyway, I think they do a great job now...

 

The only program that does not need fixes is "Hello world!" - maybe.
As to WU service, for me, it's been pretty much spotless these past 10 years.
Mrk

 

Welcome to Wilders! the best security forum anywhere!

You may have a point there re the redmon side of it. Another term for compartmentalisation is silos the "olde" term was the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Here is an event that just occured on my W7 64 bit setup. I'm running EMET 3.5. I was testing a "new" MS settings for it called "call check". well when I opened an MS Access 2010 database EMET 3.5 announced "call check failed" on Access and shut it down. That is what emet is supposed to do. Then I turned off call check for access and ran access again after a reboot and I got a new message warning last time access ran there was a serious error do you want to continue with access? It pressed on and all worked.

So I conclude 2 issues occured here:

1) EMET 3.5 was not tested by MS against Access 2010 and should have been
2) MS is openly using "us" to test "their" software i accepted that when I installed emet

This is a post based on facts

 

From the H Security site:

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Microsoft-and-Adobe-close-almost-40-holes-1779941.html