Apparently it took Senator John McCain to shame Apple into making the iphone updates a little more automatic (see this link). During the past year apple has eliminated the requirement to put in an apple password in order to get our updates on iphones (but has not done the same for ipods). This has made it a little easier for users. However we still get a nag with a number showing how many updates we need to do, and then have to click to go to the app store and then click update. While the updates are happening, other services slow down, because the update process is tying up bandwidth and processor time. So while the device has our attention, and we have the time to do something productive with the device, it is partially disabled or performing at a lower level than it could be operating at. I've always thought that Apple could change the way the devices operate so that after we've queued up the update, it could wait until there hasn't been any user input activity for a period of five minutes, which would signify that the user is no longer needing the processor or downlink bandwidth to actually start the updates.
Apple's system, however slightly unfriendly could be considered polite and efficient compared to Microsoft. And -- I think Microsoft misses a big opportunity to win friends and improve marketing. Every second Tuesday, Microsoft has a huge bunch of updates to all of their operating systems and office products. The update seems to always take a long time, even with relatively fast processors and downlink speeds. My experience is that the process takes at least 10 minutes and sometimes as long as 30 minutes. During the process of updating, the user is somewhat inconvenienced by the update tying up the processor, and bandwidth. The user is also concerned that if doing productive work, at some point the update process is going to finish and then start nagging the user to do the update. Usually at the end of the process, the computer needs a restart, which disrupts other activities or work that a user might be doing. All work in progress needs to be saved, all web site links have to be saved and the user needs to remember exactly where all items were saved to enable return after the reboot. The reboot process would normally take only a few minutes. However, because of the update, the shutdown sometimes takes an extra five to ten minutes "while installation" takes place. Then during the start-up, sometimes there is more delay for additional installations. After an update is done, the operating system continually "nags" for the user to do that all important restart. Instead of providing an option that says "restart when I'm no longer busy" and then watch for no activity on the computer for an extended period, it continually nags and allows a user to postpone the restart as long as "4 hours"---why the rush? Why is is so urgent to do this update in a few hours? This whole update process consumes an amazing amount of time for each user of a Microsoft operating system-based computer. I have three machines, so the time gets multiplied. I can't imagine how much time is wasted around the world with this process.
Yes, Microsoft does have an "automatic" process for updating. However it doesn't work when a machine is turned off for much of the time (such as a typical laptop use). When the machine is turned on later, it determines it needs to update. So now, while the user is busy trying to do something with a machine that has been idle for a week, the machine processor power and bandwidth are tied up with the update process.
Even when the operating system does it's "automatic" update, it doesn't seem to update all of the "important" updates and never seems to do, what it has determined to be, "optional" updates. Optional updates, such as .net framework, and antivirus & spyware definitions seem to not be considered important to Microsoft. To find out about these updates the user has to visit "microsoft update" and start that process. The "check for updates" process can also take a LONG time before it figures out what updates are necessary. In fact the amount of time required seems to be long enough to have uploaded most of our personal files to a server. What can Microsoft be doing during that long wait? It would seem very simple to check and see if the last update was done by looking in a table saved somewhere in the operating system folder--a few milliseconds!
Finally, after all updates are complete, the user has the full use of the machine and operating system. However, to the user, the system seems to be unchanged! All of the changes are apparently completely "under the hood" -- All of the operating system bugs and unfriendly aspects of the operating system are still there! No GUI or other improvements are visible to the user. We are supposed to go back to doing our business with the comfort that our operating system might be a little safer from viruses, worms, spyware, and sudden crashes.
This is what "the world needs" when it comes to Microsoft updates.
Apple's system, however slightly unfriendly could be considered polite and efficient compared to Microsoft. And -- I think Microsoft misses a big opportunity to win friends and improve marketing. Every second Tuesday, Microsoft has a huge bunch of updates to all of their operating systems and office products. The update seems to always take a long time, even with relatively fast processors and downlink speeds. My experience is that the process takes at least 10 minutes and sometimes as long as 30 minutes. During the process of updating, the user is somewhat inconvenienced by the update tying up the processor, and bandwidth. The user is also concerned that if doing productive work, at some point the update process is going to finish and then start nagging the user to do the update. Usually at the end of the process, the computer needs a restart, which disrupts other activities or work that a user might be doing. All work in progress needs to be saved, all web site links have to be saved and the user needs to remember exactly where all items were saved to enable return after the reboot. The reboot process would normally take only a few minutes. However, because of the update, the shutdown sometimes takes an extra five to ten minutes "while installation" takes place. Then during the start-up, sometimes there is more delay for additional installations. After an update is done, the operating system continually "nags" for the user to do that all important restart. Instead of providing an option that says "restart when I'm no longer busy" and then watch for no activity on the computer for an extended period, it continually nags and allows a user to postpone the restart as long as "4 hours"---why the rush? Why is is so urgent to do this update in a few hours? This whole update process consumes an amazing amount of time for each user of a Microsoft operating system-based computer. I have three machines, so the time gets multiplied. I can't imagine how much time is wasted around the world with this process.
Yes, Microsoft does have an "automatic" process for updating. However it doesn't work when a machine is turned off for much of the time (such as a typical laptop use). When the machine is turned on later, it determines it needs to update. So now, while the user is busy trying to do something with a machine that has been idle for a week, the machine processor power and bandwidth are tied up with the update process.
Even when the operating system does it's "automatic" update, it doesn't seem to update all of the "important" updates and never seems to do, what it has determined to be, "optional" updates. Optional updates, such as .net framework, and antivirus & spyware definitions seem to not be considered important to Microsoft. To find out about these updates the user has to visit "microsoft update" and start that process. The "check for updates" process can also take a LONG time before it figures out what updates are necessary. In fact the amount of time required seems to be long enough to have uploaded most of our personal files to a server. What can Microsoft be doing during that long wait? It would seem very simple to check and see if the last update was done by looking in a table saved somewhere in the operating system folder--a few milliseconds!
Finally, after all updates are complete, the user has the full use of the machine and operating system. However, to the user, the system seems to be unchanged! All of the changes are apparently completely "under the hood" -- All of the operating system bugs and unfriendly aspects of the operating system are still there! No GUI or other improvements are visible to the user. We are supposed to go back to doing our business with the comfort that our operating system might be a little safer from viruses, worms, spyware, and sudden crashes.
This is what "the world needs" when it comes to Microsoft updates.
- All updates done at once --automatically.
- Tell user when updates are available, but do the update when user is finished.
- Do the restart automatically.
- Save what the user was doing prior to the restart -- similar to a "hibernate" --If applications and files were open prior to the restart, put them back where they were!
- Reward users with correction of the known "bugs" in the operating system that the user sees. Yes, that may take away incentives for users to buy the next operating system, but why should we suffer with the known bugs?
- Reward users with little "gifts" at the end of the update. Microsoft has profile information for each user. They also know the operating system, the processor type, and what other microsoft products the user has on the machine. Microsoft could provide as a gift items like:
- Screensaver with graphics tailored to profile of user
- New poem by a writer --a sample from a new poetry book?
- Sample of a new song or video by an artist that meets the user's profile
- New application, short game or puzzle
- An "Easter Egg" hunt through the operating system with clues that would encourage the user to explore parts of the operating system or MS office features that aren't well known in order to find an image, sound clip etc.
- A fun, interesting historical fact relating to the month when the update occurs, such as "Flag Day" --who founded it, when it was put on the calendar etc --along with some photos--of course correlated to the geographic location where the computer is located
