The time required for all the updates in Win7 is pretty hefty. Considering that some proprietary software can have a narrow range of working environments (such as only IE9 support) you sometimes have to invest a little effort into making sure that you get all the updates you want, and nothing you don't want. Even with WSUS, things aren't always all that smooth. Sometimes it seems as though WSUS just wan't to mess with your mind. Ever had to roll back an update that made a mess of things, then marked it as declined, only to have it re-install because you failed to clear the download cache? Why the Hell should this even be necessary?
Yes, Mr. Death... I'll play you a game! But not CHESS !!! BAH... FOOEY! My game is...
WIFFLEBALL!
Then how would another SP fix things? If anything it would make things worse, because it would include all the updates whether you want them or not.
Think SP2 forcing a non removable IE11 on you...
Also if a software fails to work then the vendor should update it, it is their duty and it should be stipulated in the support/maintenance contract with the vendor. If such software is mission critical and there is no support contract then some heads should roll...
But by that logic, why bother having any SP's at all? The whole point of the SP is to have it all built in so that you don't have to spend time downloading and installing them individually. Also it should cut time because instead of having to go from IE 8 to IE 9 to IE 10 to IE 11,.... it would just go straigh to IE 11. And for those who want an older version of IE,... well just get an older disc.
I fully agree - the reply was in re. to the idea of having granular control over patches and IE versions. A SP could help, but in corporate environments the patches are easily included in the image and can be distributed easily. The problem exists just in small shops where time matters and there is no universal image due to the broad range of systems one comes across.
I had to build a Windows 7 Pro system today in Polish, then update it. Strangely it was much more fun than a normal build.
Hypothetically, I couldn't agree more. But, I work with several small to medium financial institutions, and in order to work with the data centers they use, they have to use their software. Essentially, no bank or credit union stores client info in house anymore: it's all kept "in the cloud" at server farms run by, say, Fiserv, Summit, Southwest Bancorp, or whatever. On the one hand that's good, because if your data was kept at a branch bank and the building was struck by lightning, you might experience some downtime when you couldn't access your account. And, yes, I've been there and done that. I've replaced ethernet cable that took such a hit that the insulation melted and ran off the cable.
So, the cloud is good, until a security breach at one of these big data centers exposes a few million user's information to the Russian mafia. I know I've posted this before, but the president of a local credit union recently told me "I spend X thousands of dollars a year on security services for our local branches, and then there's a breach at a data center that makes our efforts pointless."
And I have to say that all these data centers are way, way, at the trailing edge of technology. But most financial institutions are simply stuck with the deal they are handed; they can't afford to build their own infrastructure and handle all the support and security issues that go along with it.
Yes, Mr. Death... I'll play you a game! But not CHESS !!! BAH... FOOEY! My game is...
WIFFLEBALL!
I agree. I once prepared a laptop in Spanish which some missionaries were going to deliver to a school in Mexico. It was just the OS, updates, and Office. I got a book for them too in order to teach them how to use it. While I do not speak Spanish, I had done the same install in English countless times so it went very smoothly.