...Most of us have dozens of applications installed on our PCs, many of which check for updates when the application is active. So why does the Google Updater have to run all the time in the background?...
I tend to mellow out, and not worrry much. My motto is "What, Me Worry." Seriously my PC was booted more than six days ago, since then, the Google Updater Service has accumulated no measurable CPU time. It uses less than a a mega byte of storage. There is at least a dozen simular processes running. If the application is well written, why do I care, and if it poorly written it should never run.
I have always taken the stance that no software is installed on my PC without my express permission. I only allow my resident defenses (AV and AS) to update signatures automatically. I won't even allow automatic updates from MS to run, preferring instead to do manual updates, and only after I have determined that these updates can be uninstalled (MS has a history of pushing updates that cannot be uninstalled).
I deleted the Google Toolbar when it started auto-updating its software without notice and without asking. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I trust no application that thinks it can install software on my PC without asking first. For my money, Google has gotten too big for its britches.
Joe, I disagree. I find your logic illogical. If you allow your protection software to be updated automatically, then why not allow Microsoft to also update automatically, since most of their critical updates a security patches.
not that your question was directed to me, but I won't allow MS to automatically update anything on my system for the pure fact that somehow I have received two updates that were not intended for my pc. Both resulted in me bashing Dell on the forums and to anyone who would listen when in reality it was MS pushing the updates. At the time I figured it was a Dell computer so they were the cause until I realized that it was an MS updated that caused the problem. I would have to search to find the updates that caused this, but since then I have the updated manually. I'm sure others have different views, but that's why I don't do automatic updates through MS. For my security software, if an update borks the program, it is usually fixed with an uninstall/reinstall (in most cases). However, with the MS update issue it took multiple hours with tech support to fix.
What can I say? I allow my protection software to update its signatures, because I do not consider these to be software updates.
MS updates are different. In general I would agree that one should enable them automatically, Yet I resist. MS has pushed updates in the past I did not want, and that I could not uninstall.
I continue to insist that no software be installed on my PC without my express permission.
msgale
2 Intern
•
2.5K Posts
0
February 17th, 2009 13:00
I tend to mellow out, and not worrry much. My motto is "What, Me Worry." Seriously my PC was booted more than six days ago, since then, the Google Updater Service has accumulated no measurable CPU time. It uses less than a a mega byte of storage. There is at least a dozen simular processes running. If the application is well written, why do I care, and if it poorly written it should never run.
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
February 17th, 2009 15:00
I have always taken the stance that no software is installed on my PC without my express permission. I only allow my resident defenses (AV and AS) to update signatures automatically. I won't even allow automatic updates from MS to run, preferring instead to do manual updates, and only after I have determined that these updates can be uninstalled (MS has a history of pushing updates that cannot be uninstalled).
I deleted the Google Toolbar when it started auto-updating its software without notice and without asking. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I trust no application that thinks it can install software on my PC without asking first. For my money, Google has gotten too big for its britches.
Bugbatter
3 Apprentice
•
20.5K Posts
0
February 17th, 2009 19:00
I'm with you, Joe. :emotion-21:
msgale
2 Intern
•
2.5K Posts
0
February 19th, 2009 13:00
Joe, I disagree. I find your logic illogical. If you allow your protection software to be updated automatically, then why not allow Microsoft to also update automatically, since most of their critical updates a security patches.
beversoll
2 Intern
•
301 Posts
0
February 19th, 2009 16:00
hey msgale,
not that your question was directed to me, but I won't allow MS to automatically update anything on my system for the pure fact that somehow I have received two updates that were not intended for my pc. Both resulted in me bashing Dell on the forums and to anyone who would listen when in reality it was MS pushing the updates. At the time I figured it was a Dell computer so they were the cause until I realized that it was an MS updated that caused the problem. I would have to search to find the updates that caused this, but since then I have the updated manually. I'm sure others have different views, but that's why I don't do automatic updates through MS. For my security software, if an update borks the program, it is usually fixed with an uninstall/reinstall (in most cases). However, with the MS update issue it took multiple hours with tech support to fix.
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
February 19th, 2009 19:00
Michael:
What can I say? I allow my protection software to update its signatures, because I do not consider these to be software updates.
MS updates are different. In general I would agree that one should enable them automatically, Yet I resist. MS has pushed updates in the past I did not want, and that I could not uninstall.
I continue to insist that no software be installed on my PC without my express permission.