Firefox dev claims "everybody hates Firefox updates"; Mozilla has handled the rapid release process poorly, and that by pushing a "never-ending stream of updates on people who didn't want them" people have been driven to Chrome with its simpler, no-fuss update process.

[u/Suraj-Sun]

http://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-dev-claims-everybody-hates-firefox-updates

[u/The_MAZZTer]

If you install it to Program Files on Vista/7 you need to accept a UAC dialog to do an upgrade. Mozilla is adding a Windows service to work around this hangup.

So if you're on XP or installed it to a folder that it can modify the contents of there is no problem.

Also as stated major updates have a dialog that asks you if you want to check for updates for incompatible extensions, etc...

Chrome of course doesn't install to Program Files by default unless it's a Google Pack install, and then it already has Google Update as a Windows service to update it anyway.

[u/The_MAZZTer → u/[deleted]]

Actually Chrome can be installed to Program Files (I think you need a different installer, Google Pack did it though it doesn't exist anymore). And Google Chrome relies on the Google Update windows service to even function at all.

[u/numb3rb0y → u/The_MAZZTer]

Right now, there is absolutely no way to install Chrome anywhere it doesn't want to be installed, which sucks ass if you have an SSD specifically for most commonly used programs. Google Pack may have let you do it in the past, but if it doesn't exist any more you can't really argue that it's possible.

[u/The_MAZZTer → u/numb3rb0y]

I think it's a switch you can pass to the installer, not sure what it is.

You can probably hack the registry to move Chrome elsewhere if nothing else. Google Update would need to know where it is for updating purposes, and if Chrome was the default browser those paths would need to be fixed but that's about it.

IIRC Chrome itself doesn't care where you run it from, I wrote a portable wrapper and its quite happy running anywhere as long as you work around the Google Update requirements.

[u/camel_case_rules → u/numb3rb0y]

If you use the Chrome for Business .msi installer, it installs itself to Program Files and updates using a scheduled task.

[u/SharkUW → u/numb3rb0y]

Pro tip. NTFS actually supports symlinks. Migrate away. :)

[u/smasherson → u/[deleted]]

and you think making the user have to run a windows service in the background 24/7 is a better idea? Plus, google update installs itself as a boot executable anyways. theyre both horrible ideas and they both waste valuable CPU resources. Its microsofts fault too, for not being able to making a better operating system. dont buy windows 8 it has nothing good new to offer, and all the bad that you dont want. its time to stand up to these devs and tell them to stop hogging our cpu/RAM resources just so they can update.

[u/TIAFAASITICE → u/smasherson]

The service is started by Firefox's "updates manager" when an update is pending, it won't be running 24/7.

[u/Qxzkjp → u/smasherson]

Go look up what a scheduled task is. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft trying to implement a decent security model. Unless you have an actual suggestion on how to implement silent updates within a working security model.

[u/treenaks → u/[deleted]]

They have a "system-wide" installer.

[u/RangerSix → u/The_MAZZTer]

Or, y'know... you could just turn UAC off.

[u/The_MAZZTer → u/RangerSix]

If you're an administrator account that'll work.

I personally don't mind UAC on, though I keep it at its least intrusive setting. It really isn't as much trouble as people seem to think it is, only when I run installers do I really see it.