Dealing with incremental updates, aka “dribbles”

Topic

New Reply

PATCH WATCH By Susan Bradley Last year, Microsoft announced that Windows was moving to an annual release schedule rather than the twice-a-year release
[See the full post at: Dealing with incremental updates, aka “dribbles”]

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

7 users thanked author for this post.

TMG, abbodi86, oldfry, DLivesInTexas, geekdom, lmacri, Alex5723

Reply | Quote

Replies

Susan Bradley wrote:

PATCH WATCH By Susan Bradley Last year, Microsoft announced that Windows was moving to an annual release schedule rather than the twice-a-year release
[See the full post at: Dealing with incremental updates, aka “dribbles”]

Well, if you make the obvious decision to look at the way MS tends to use its actual userbase for any given product (or distinct feature/function of an MS product) as “beta testers”, things make a lot more sense.

I cannot claim to be an expert on how largish tech (especially software) companies decide when to announce a “beta version” of some product or part of a product in order to get some real world testing done by their customers — the people who are (presumably) paying to get the product with all of its parts tested better and in somehwat more reliable working order by the tech company that released the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time version and then see how real world users reacted to it.

Only a few decades have passed since I first witnessed this sort of customer-hostile behavior by large tech companies that decide to release something (anything!) on the schedule they have been touting for months or years.  Does anyone recall a product called Xenix that was supposed to allow a Tandy TRS-80 Model 16 to support three terminals plus the microcomputer itself as the console?

Tha was not a “dribble” kind of change, it was a major new product announcement in multiple ways and it failed to work as hyped for everyone I know who tried it, including me.

Thanks to some very clever 3rd party, a workaround to MS Xenix on the TRS-80s in question was found to be at least adequate.  Enough so that I set up another system with the 3rd party fix in place and that was enough to make a different happy.  Neither of these clients needed true mini-computer functionality, but the capability of having up to four users updating databases and other info on the system was crucial.  (Data entry? — why not spread the tedium/misery!)

I guess I learned to be very wary of MS claims before most folks I know in the micro-computer biz or some aspect thereof.

Getting back to Windows updates/patches, it is interesting to note the number that have required patches to fix problems they introduced and then later patches to mitigate the first set ended up making the up making the mess, well, messier.

My only suggestion is to make full backups of a system before applying anything MS clams will improve it in some way.  Make another full backup before using the system as modified by some MS patch(s).  Storage is cheap.  Cleaning up a serious MS-Mess can cost a fortune, or your job, etc.

TMG

Reply | Quote

The only way I’m currently seeing any Windows Update information is through WUMgr. Is this approach to block or omit update information a dribble?

Win11Pro 22H2.22621.819

Carpe Diem {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1413 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox112.0b3 MicrosoftDefender

Reply | Quote