为什么存在更新 at-startup-background-update-services ？
我认为 winrot 的主要原因之一是大量的服务在启动时运行（并且不要关闭），每隔 x 秒打电话一次，看看是否有某个软件的新版本。
就我个人而言，我禁用它们中的每一个，因为它们对我来说似乎毫无用处。 大多数使用这些功能的软件包都可以选择在启动程序本身时检查更新。 这对我来说看起来更有效率。
我问自己，为什么像 Adobe 和 Apple 这样的公司要创建这样的服务，让客户的计算机陷入困境，同时增加他们自己的更新服务器的负担，因为在我看来，这对两家公司来说都没有什么回报价值。他们。
我的客户请求这样的服务，但我看不出有什么理由。 我想确保我没有遗漏任何一块拼图，这样我就可以就为什么这应该或不应该是一个所需的功能提出有根据的意见。
I think one of the main causes of winrot are the sheer number of services that run at startup (and don't shut down) that phone home every x seconds to see if there is a new version of some piece of software.
Me personally, I disable every single one of them because they seem utterly useless to me. Most of the software packages that use these things, have an option to check for updates whenever you launch the program itself too. This looks way more efficient to me.
I was asking myself what the reason is for companies like Adobe and Apple to create such services that bog clients' computers down and at the same time increase the burden on their own update servers for what looks to me as very little return value for neither of them.
My client requests such a service, but I don't see any reason for it. I want to make sure I'm not missing a piece of the puzzle so I can come back with an educated opinion on why this is should or shouldn't be a desired functionality.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
管理层通常希望获得品牌认可。 它是这样的：
你能说我很苦吗？
It's usually a desire by management to get brand recognition. It goes something like this:
Can you tell I'm bitter?
罗杰的位置正好。
另外，一旦应用程序开发到已经拥有您期望它涵盖其预期用途的所有功能，供应商就会陷入困境。 他们需要不断推出令人兴奋的新版本，因此范围膨胀逐渐蔓延。我们必须做与它相关的所有事情，而不是做好一件事然后避开。 我们必须始终站在用户的面前； 绝不允许他们使用不属于我们的软件； 他们必须始终与我们的品牌互动。 当然，我们必须注意始终在后台启动更新程序任务，因为我们添加了一个完全不必要的面向互联网的浏览器插件/工具栏/ActiveX 东西，这肯定会存在安全漏洞。
收购型软件是一个巨大的问题，它会不断降低 Windows 上的用户体验。 这是一场军备竞赛：微软隐藏了旧的应用程序表面界面（弃用经典的开始菜单，删除快速启动，隐藏系统托盘图标，自动删除不活动的桌面图标），因为它们变得如此充满收购软件垃圾，以至于它们基本上是无法使用，同时引入“会更好”的新功能。 但是，应用程序需要多久才能开始“有用地”将自己添加到“开始”菜单的 MRU 列表（因为您肯定会想要经常使用我们出色的软件！）并将自己固定到 Windows 7 扩展坞？
Linux 在这方面做得更好，因为发行版拥有对用户的访问权限，并且不会容忍任何这种垃圾。 不幸的是，这并不是微软可以逃脱的惩罚。
额外奖励 您知道有趣的事实吗：曾几何时，Nero 是一个漂亮、优雅的 CD 刻录工具。
Roger's spot on.
Plus, once an application has developed to the point where it already has all the features you could expect it to cover for its intended purpose, the vendor is stuck. They need to keep banging out exciting new versions, so scope bloat creeps in. Instead of doing one thing well and getting out of the way, we must do everything related to it. We must always be in the user's face; they must never be allowed to use software that isn't ours; they must always be interacting with our brand. And of course we must take care to always start an updater task in the background, because we added a completely unnecessary internet-facing browser plugin/toolbar/ActiveX thing that will surely turn out to have security holes.
Acquisitive software is a huge problem that is steadily degrading the user experience on Windows. And it's an arms race: Microsoft hide old application surface interfaces (deprecating the classic start menu, removing quick launch, hiding system tray icons, auto-removing inactive Desktop icons) as they become so full of acquisitive-software junk that they're basically unusable, whilst introducing new ones that "will be better". But how long until applications start "helpfully" adding themselves to the Start menu's MRU list (because you're definitely going to want to use our great software a lot!) and pinning themselves to the Windows 7 dock?
Linux is doing better here because the distros own access to the user and aren't going to put up with any of this crap. Not something Microsoft can get away with though unfortunately.
Bonus Did You Know Fun Fact: Once upon a time, Nero was a nice, elegant CD-burning tool.