__/ [ 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"...
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Wintendo O/S: which virus do fancy today?
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
8:05am up 23 days 15:08, 7 users, load average: 0.91, 0.99, 1.00
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
