On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote:
Mayo> ... Microsoft [wastes disk space] with updates that have already been applied ... Trent> OS versus add-on Scott> That distinction matters why? Trent> You don't have to install iTunes... Windows ... is required ... Trent> ... Microsoft sometimes utilizes files from old updates ... Trent> ... Apple and Adobe are simply clueless ... Scott> ... MS gets a pass on crappy install practices because Windows is required? Schaefer> Microsoft patches are quick small compared to what Apple distributes. Schaefer> Patching Macs seems to involve reinstalling entire applications ... Be that as it may, the point under discussion was iTunes on Windows caching installables/updates vs Microsoft caching installables/updates. Rod Trent appears to be suggesting that it's okay for Microsoft to do that, because Windows is required and iTunes is optional. I don't follow that argument at all. Rod Trent also says that Microsoft keeps old updates around, but Apple is just clueless. I don't get why it's okay for Vista to keep a copy of every single possible installable file on the HDD, in multiple versions from updates, but it's not okay for Apple to do that. FWIW, my own opinion on this is that both MSFT and APPL have deficiencies in their approaches, but I'm also curious as to what's driving Rod's stance. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
