6 ms·

The automatic and frequent update system is one thing which makes Chrome very good. It can pretty much be assumed that all users connected to the internet woul

The automatic and frequent update system is one thing which makes Chrome very good. It can pretty much be assumed that all users connected to the internet would be atleast on the latest stable version.

protomyth 16y ago
Actually, in a place with a good internal network and a lower speed external connection, it makes Chrome very bad. Taking up bandwidth downloading the same thing for multiple computers is bad. Windows and OS X allow one download to be propagated to multiple machines. This is an efficient model that allows reporting on which machines didn't get the update (thus making it a lot more likely all machines will be updated). We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has. Luckily, Chrome use differential updates. This means each update is a tiny binary patch. If you combine them all on your network, it's still a smaller update then one single IE update of 250MB deployed to each machines.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb for a couple hundred machines on the internet line is a big difference. Particularly since I can plan when the big download happens (and update) versus all the small downloads that happen in a lab at the same time because of a class starting. Students with the first class of the day don't feel terribly happy about being the designated updater of some company's software.
    - patrickaljord 16y ago
      > 1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb Make that a few kb. And last time I checked at my work, admin updates usually happen during work hours and affects people working in the "lab". Also, it's 1 250mb that is sometimes installed on each machine on the network, so way worse than a few kb.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        Well, your admin is doing it wrong if updates are happening during the day. So, no people bothered, reports, and less internet usage is better.
        patrickaljord 16y ago
        Your admin is doing it wrong if updates of a few kb are clogging his network. Also, small labs can't afford to pay admins at night, and big labs surely can afford a few kb transfers on their networks. We're talking about gigabytes networks and admin can always use cache proxy so that chrome only taps the net once for the tiny kb update.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      I highly suspect that you are projecting the experience of other auto-updating software (such as Adobe Reader) onto Chrome. Chrome's auto-updates are incredibly efficient and very non-intrusive.
- tuxychandru 16y ago
  The problem with allowing admins to manage updates is that any new version which breaks an internal app in the slightest way would be a reason to avoid updating. This is what has given IE6 its long life in the corporate world. While this is a pragmatic decision, it can hurt badly in the long run as we all know.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    So, it's preferable to have a company not able to use its apps to get business done then have a non-updated browser?

protomyth 16y ago

Actually, in a place with a good internal network and a lower speed external connection, it makes Chrome very bad. Taking up bandwidth downloading the same thing for multiple computers is bad. Windows and OS X allow one download to be propagated to multiple machines. This is an efficient model that allows reporting on which machines didn't get the update (thus making it a lot more likely all machines will be updated). We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has.

patrickaljord 16y ago
> We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has. Luckily, Chrome use differential updates. This means each update is a tiny binary patch. If you combine them all on your network, it's still a smaller update then one single IE update of 250MB deployed to each machines.
- protomyth 16y ago
  1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb for a couple hundred machines on the internet line is a big difference. Particularly since I can plan when the big download happens (and update) versus all the small downloads that happen in a lab at the same time because of a class starting. Students with the first class of the day don't feel terribly happy about being the designated updater of some company's software.
  - patrickaljord 16y ago
    > 1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb Make that a few kb. And last time I checked at my work, admin updates usually happen during work hours and affects people working in the "lab". Also, it's 1 250mb that is sometimes installed on each machine on the network, so way worse than a few kb.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Well, your admin is doing it wrong if updates are happening during the day. So, no people bothered, reports, and less internet usage is better.
      - patrickaljord 16y ago
        Your admin is doing it wrong if updates of a few kb are clogging his network. Also, small labs can't afford to pay admins at night, and big labs surely can afford a few kb transfers on their networks. We're talking about gigabytes networks and admin can always use cache proxy so that chrome only taps the net once for the tiny kb update.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    I highly suspect that you are projecting the experience of other auto-updating software (such as Adobe Reader) onto Chrome. Chrome's auto-updates are incredibly efficient and very non-intrusive.
tuxychandru 16y ago
The problem with allowing admins to manage updates is that any new version which breaks an internal app in the slightest way would be a reason to avoid updating. This is what has given IE6 its long life in the corporate world. While this is a pragmatic decision, it can hurt badly in the long run as we all know.
- protomyth 16y ago
  So, it's preferable to have a company not able to use its apps to get business done then have a non-updated browser?