[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple borrows from Windows Update playbook for OS X Mountain Lion here

[afriedma]

Great. I can't wait for Apple's first, "Service Pack 1".

[zarmanto]

 afriedma, on 26 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Great. I can't wait for Apple's first, "Service Pack 1".

I think you're misinterpreting the Microsoft features being "imitated" here... Microsoft "Service Packs" are infrequently released, and typically consist of all of the security and stability patches which have been released since the last major release to an OS. I would argue that Apple's dot-releases (10.6.1 for example) more closely equate to Microsoft's service packs. What this article seems to be saying is that in addition to that, Apple will now be imitating the more frequent release of smaller individual security patches, (those ones that pop up every month on "Patch Tuesday") as well as the daily check-ins with the update server.

It's not a bad move, from a security standpoint... and if Apple does it right, end users will probably never notice the difference.

[Kees]

What I find really annoying about the changes in Mountain Lion update proces is that the OS updates appear in the same 'updates' section in the Mac App Store as, say, some frivolous Angry Birds update.

The Software Update process and interface we currently have is simple and straight forward, the Mac App Store is turning into a victim of its own success, much like iTunes. Somehow, I think it will actually cause people to update less frequently, especially those who don't use the MAS much and/or will ignore or disable notification popups.
Sure, intermediate security updates will be installed automatically, but I doubt they will push .1 (feature) updates automatically too.

How my software update server on the OS X Server setup will work is also a complete mystery. The prospect of having every one of the workstations automatically download a 600+Mb .1 update 40 times over is not one I'm looking forward too.

[tee1up]

I think it's great that Apple is going to beef this up. The alternative is to leave users with their pants around their ankles like Microsoft did when Nimda showed up.

[icerabbit]

As long as they don't interfere with work, install in the background and don't require to restart the system.

My work notebook constantly auto-restarts in 10 min - 4 hours because of some stupid thing or another. Then takes forever to shut down at inappropriate times or takes 10 min to boot up .... aarrrggh.

[Jasonmwa]

 zarmanto, on 26 June 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

 afriedma, on 26 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Great. I can't wait for Apple's first, "Service Pack 1".

I think you're misinterpreting the Microsoft features being "imitated" here... Microsoft "Service Packs" are infrequently released, and typically consist of all of the security and stability patches which have been released since the last major release to an OS. I would argue that Apple's dot-releases (10.6.1 for example) more closely equate to Microsoft's service packs. What this article seems to be saying is that in addition to that, Apple will now be imitating the more frequent release of smaller individual security patches, (those ones that pop up every month on "Patch Tuesday") as well as the daily check-ins with the update server.

It's not a bad move, from a security standpoint... and if Apple does it right, end users will probably never notice the difference.

Okay, so where will Apple put the exclamation point to let you know you need to restart (like the Standby button in Windows Start menu)? That sounds like a more apt comparison. I'm torn between the idea that my desktop will never be updated since I don't restart it, ever, and my laptop having to update large gobs because I only turn it on when I need it (on the road, desktop being used for a larger project, etc). It's a great move on Apple's part and they surely are accounting for all of this (unlike Microsoft; EVERY time I log into Windows via Bootcamp I am forced to restart at least twice to install updates); I think it's the article itself casting negative dispersions with it's comparison of Apples and Oranges.

[Vafudhr]

And what if the security update mess with something and I find myself with a new bug that creates problem to my work? How can I feel secure to have updates, even critical ones, imposed on me without fair warning or the possibility for me to refute them and check out if they are safe and sound!

Bad move Apple.

[robertRoss]

 Vafudhr, on 27 June 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

And what if the security update mess with something and I find myself with a new bug that creates problem to my work? How can I feel secure to have updates, even critical ones, imposed on me without fair warning or the possibility for me to refute them and check out if they are safe and sound!

Bad move Apple.

Disable the auto updates. Done.
In Windows I have it set so I can review the updates and apply them by choice. It's not frequent, maybe 3 in the last 4 or 5 months, but I wouldn't be surprised if you had the ability to do the same with this revision to the update system in OS X.

[redgeminipa]

 Jasonmwa, on 26 June 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

 zarmanto, on 26 June 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

 afriedma, on 26 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Great. I can't wait for Apple's first, "Service Pack 1".

I think you're misinterpreting the Microsoft features being "imitated" here... Microsoft "Service Packs" are infrequently released, and typically consist of all of the security and stability patches which have been released since the last major release to an OS. I would argue that Apple's dot-releases (10.6.1 for example) more closely equate to Microsoft's service packs. What this article seems to be saying is that in addition to that, Apple will now be imitating the more frequent release of smaller individual security patches, (those ones that pop up every month on "Patch Tuesday") as well as the daily check-ins with the update server.

It's not a bad move, from a security standpoint... and if Apple does it right, end users will probably never notice the difference.

Okay, so where will Apple put the exclamation point to let you know you need to restart (like the Standby button in Windows Start menu)? That sounds like a more apt comparison. I'm torn between the idea that my desktop will never be updated since I don't restart it, ever, and my laptop having to update large gobs because I only turn it on when I need it (on the road, desktop being used for a larger project, etc). It's a great move on Apple's part and they surely are accounting for all of this (unlike Microsoft; EVERY time I log into Windows via Bootcamp I am forced to restart at least twice to install updates); I think it's the article itself casting negative dispersions with it's comparison of Apples and Oranges.

Considering OS X updates don't require nearly as many restarts as Windows, I don't think it'll be a problem. If a restart is required, I'm sure the user will be alerted beforehand.

[AhadShabbir]

OS X now has to have its own little security updates, though, those updates usually come in the software updates.