Ben Myers wrote:
Daddy wrote:
wrote:
As I said, we have different philosophies. I just feel more
comfortable not relying on MS for protection and prefer to go to other
multiple sources. Let's face it, MS hasn't been known to be very
secure and your 300+ updates, sorta backs that up. And it is not
because I can't reverse a bad update tho sometimes this is a pain. And
as I said before I do NOT claim I am bulletproof but I feel more
protected my way.

I must say I agree more with your philosophy...than the "blind trust"
one!

Daddy saidI update my operating system because it's the smart thing
to do, not
because I'm a Microsoft-lover.
"Smart" according to whom?

Lol...

"Smart" accordingly to virtually every reputable PC publication.
Oh...you probably don't trust them. They just say that in hopes of
getting advertising from Microsoft, right? Get a life.

Daddy

Having worked for a number of years once upon a time for computer trade
rags, I will state point-blank that there is no Chinese wall between the
ad department and the editorial department. The editorial folk may
claim there is one, but that is another large steaming pile of horse
manure in this business. Consider that Micro$oft spends a major amount
of money on advertising, and then think about how much influence they
have on editorial content. (I am not so sure the Chinese ad-editorial
wall exists for computers even with mainstream media like the WSJ, NYT,
Time, etc.)

I once wrote a review comparing Microsoft C++, Watcom C++, Symantec C++
and Borland C++, complete with well-structured benchmark tests of
compile times and execution times for compiled programs. (This was a
long time ago, in the dark days of MS-DOS!) I had no axe to grind. I
just reported objective results with no preconceived idea as to which
compiler was the best. Well, you guessed it. Microsoft and their PR
flaks at Waggoner-Edstrom went nuts, tried to discredit me, tried to
discredit the tests used, and so on and so on, when their precious
Microsoft C++ compiler was outperformed by other compilers on the tests.
Never mind that its integrated editor-compiler-debugger was great. They
drank their own kool-aid a lot, and their product was better than any
other. How could I dare to show that it was not up to the mark in other
ways?

This is just one of a long series of encounters with Micro$oft during my
journalistic career and beyond that have led me to trust them about as
much as the Russian Politburo, Kim Il Jong, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad and
others of the same ilk. As Mr Reagan used to say in his very best words
of wisdom: "Trust and verify", and that applies to patches, too... Ben
Myers

Let's not forget all those commies in the government.

Daddy