Update your Updater so you can Update
-
Microsoft popped this up. I better update my updater or my updater won't update.
-
If we had more updates, the world would be a better place.
And now, it's time for the anti-MS fanbois to start salivating. Sloppy nerd spit, inc.
-
They seem to have chosen the least WTF-ey language they could to describe what is happening.
The OP chose a WTF-ey version.
-
@belgariontheking said:
They seem to have chosen the least WTF-ey language they could to describe what is happening.
The OP chose a WTF-ey version.
I'd have to agree. I can't think of a better way to inform the user without sounding more complex or verbose.
-
@belgariontheking said:
They seem to have chosen the least WTF-ey language they could to describe what is happening.
Seems pretty clear to me but then I've been looking at Windows needs to update the Windows Updater messages for years maybe I'm just used to it ....
-
Nothing WTF-ey about an auto-updater needing to update itself - it's possible new features were added or bugs were fixed in it (e.g. adding configuration options, supporting a new data format from the update servers to provide additional information, checking for digital signatures on updates to prevent DNS poisoning from serving up viruses).
You've earned the mug.
-
Really, an updater is the last place you want a security hole, so keeping it up to date sounds like a good idea.
-
@vt_mruhlin said:
Really, an updater is the last place you want a security hole, so keeping it up to date sounds like a good idea.
There is a WTF about this sort of thing from Microsoft, though: I forget which version of Windows it was, but there was a version in which you had to upgrade the ActiveX control used by the updater immediately after a clean install. After doing so, it would then allow you to download an update to the updater, which would then download (along with some other things) another update to the updater, which was the version that actually got all the latest updates. I always wondered why they didn't just put the latest updater in along with the ActiveX control update; I bet it would have taken up less space than two separate updates, and then they could have consolidated all the updates into one list.
-
@The Vicar said:
I always wondered why they didn't just put the latest updater in along with the ActiveX control update
Possibly the same reason people have to upgrade one service pack (or some other check point) at a time, or used to with XP.
-
@Lingerance said:
@The Vicar said:
I always wondered why they didn't just put the latest updater in along with the ActiveX control update
Possibly the same reason people have to upgrade one service pack (or some other check point) at a time, or used to with XP.But in this case, no other updates were required -- you could uncheck all the other things and just do ActiveX control, Updater, Updater. Why didn't they just build a download which would universally (1) update the ActiveX control, (2) do whatever system-level changes were done by the first updater, and then (3) do whatever system-level changes were done by the second updater? The odds are you could make a single package to do all that which would be smaller than the individual pieces.
-
@The Vicar said:
@Lingerance said:
@The Vicar said:
I always wondered why they didn't just put the latest updater in along with the ActiveX control update
Possibly the same reason people have to upgrade one service pack (or some other check point) at a time, or used to with XP.But in this case, no other updates were required -- you could uncheck all the other things and just do ActiveX control, Updater, Updater. Why didn't they just build a download which would universally (1) update the ActiveX control, (2) do whatever system-level changes were done by the first updater, and then (3) do whatever system-level changes were done by the second updater? The odds are you could make a single package to do all that which would be smaller than the individual pieces.
Perhaps there were compatibility reasons. It might just be a surface WTF. Reminds me how even the biggest ocean liners and cruise ships are still moored at port by throwing a regular rope to land, which then tows a larger cable, which then tows a larger cable, and so on.
-
This is nothing compared to Adobe. I have trouble deciding which one of the Adobe Reader 8 WTFs is the biggest one:
- That you need to update the updater before updating;
- That you [b]must[/b] update the updater. If you stop it, it will pop up again when it's least expected;
- That the updater updater creates a folder "Updater5" in My Documents (fortunately the updater itself doesn't).
- That you can't download an updated version from Adobe directly, you download the old version, the update the updater, ... you get it.
Okay that last point may no longer be true, as I see that the Russian Reader 8.1 has surfaced. I'll try it now.
-
Sounds almost like .NET Framework - download the base version first (through Windows Update), reboot, get the service pack (again through Windows Update), reboot, download more updates (for .NET), reboot. I've been wondering for years why couldn't they make an unified Framework with SP installer (and it's the same with Office 2007 compatibility pack - if you want SP1, you have to install it after the base pack - but at least you don't need reboots here).
-
@ender said:
Sounds almost like .NET Framework - download the base version first (through Windows Update), reboot, get the service pack (again through Windows Update), reboot, download more updates (for .NET), reboot. I've been wondering for years why couldn't they make an unified Framework with SP installer (and it's the same with [b]Office 2007 compatibility pack[/b] - if you want SP1, you have to install it after the base pack - but at least you don't need reboots here).
Sigh, I'm struggling to install the thing for several days — to no avail. It keeps barking "cannot install" at me, without any detail.
Anyway, I installed Reader 8.1, and nothing has changed.
-
What... Please install this update to microsoft autoupdater. I can live with it. I mean video games do that all the time, what wrong with updating an updater so you can futher get updates and be up-to-date?
