The automatic update functionality in Windows Vista has been really irritating me lately, and here’s why: by default Windows Update is set to install updates automatically at a certain time of day. That would be fine if no update required a reboot of the PC, but some do, and Microsoft still lacks the technology to capture the state of the system, apply the patch, reboot, and restore the system state. I learned early on to turn off this setting or I’d lose my work. The next-best option is “Download updates but let me choose whether to install them” - this works great for having system reboots occur on our own time frame, but it sucks because of one application: Windows Defender.

There’s a new Windows Defender anti-spyware update on an almost daily basis. That’s good for protecting me from spyware, but it’s a hassle because I have four PCs that I work on regularly. Basically every day I have to approve the installation of a Windows Defender update across four computers. That’s just a pain. There’s no good reason why something as simple as an anti-spyware profile update should be in the same category of update as a major system patch. Windows Update needs to evolve into a dual-layer system where minor updates that don’t require reboots can be installed automatically, and major updates require user permission. Or perhaps they could just add an option to not install patches requiring a reboot without user permission? There must be a way for an update to be flagged as reboot-necessary or not. Windows Update has to get better, and smarter.

Facebook, and indeed all social networking sites, are fascinating from a sociological standpoint. I bet psychology and sociology researchers are drooling in anticipation to study and data-mine everything that’s going on with those sites. One thing that I quickly realized when Facebook started to explode was the issue of the Ex’s. As in, ex-girlfriends. Life is all about cycles, and for a while you might date a woman (in my case), be involved with her circle of friends and family, and then that cycle either becomes permanent (marriage) or it ends and you begin a new cycle with someone new. I’m generalizing of course, but that’s usually how it works.

Sites like Facebook take those cycles, throw them in a super-blender, and make it messy! Ashley (my wife) and I had this discussion early on when the first ex-girlfriend invited me to be her friend on Facebook. First, it shocked the hell out of me to see her name and photo in my Facebook Inbox - I hadn’t seen her in about eight years, so it was bizarre to have her appear in my life again (even in only a virtual way). Ashley and I talked about what would happen, and what could happen, if we accepted our ex’s back into our lives. We talked about what good could come of it (not a whole lot) and the dangers of it to our marriage (a whole lot). Ultimately this isn’t about thinking our marriage isn’t strong enough to handle either of us chatting with ex’s (it is), it’s more about avoiding risks that we don’t have a good reason to take - we live in a divorce-prone society, so why tempt fate by introducing such factors? It’s all too easy to bring back memories and feelings from the past, and that’s not a healthy thing for a marriage.

In case this wasn’t already obvious, the reason I’m writing this today is that I finally got around to sending messages to the two ex-girlfriends that had sent me requests on Facebook. The first one I declined several months ago without a reason (I felt kind of bad about that), and the second one was more recent, which prompted me to craft a response that I’ll now send to any ex-girlfriend that contacts me. And, no, I haven’t had that many girlfriends in my life, so I don’t expect to be sending it out all that often.

What about you? How does this issue impact you?