Microsoft to force Windows updates?

Hi Bruce

Does that mean if one person owns 4 PCs only one license is needed? A =
bit heavy on 'National Security' - I thought.

Will

"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message =
...
Greetings --
=20
Personally, I prefer John Dvorak's solution: require all computer
owners to get a license.
=20
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1224343,00.asp
=20
=20
Bruce Chambers
=20
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
=20
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
=20
=20
"Steve" wrote in message
...

Excerpts from Ed Foster's Gripelog -

Snipped....
=20
=20


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

"BananaPannaPoe" wrote in message
...
They already have an autoupdate program that keeps you updated.
WAKE UP!

Maybe YOU should wake up. The article is about forcing automatic updates.
The current system of automatic updates is optional and can easily be turned
off.

-Tim

"Will Denny" wrote in message
...
....and those that didn't install the Security/Critical updates -
automatically or manually when offered - have now found themselves in deep
doo-doo. Luckily some of the MS-MVPs - too many to mention - have managed
to help these poor unfortunates. MS don't make updates available just for
the sheer Hell of it - not like your posting. I'm still trying to find a
sensible question in it - or is it a general dig at MS - as a lot of
postings ATM are - the posters not really knowing the 'ins and outs' of a
specific problem.

Will

---

I think part of the issue is that when XP was released, it was touted as the
most secure OS ever. Arguably, that has not been true. However, if you
ever do a clean install of XP before applying the updates, time how long it
takes XP to start up, and then time how long it takes IE to start up. Then
install the updates and see the huge difference in the speed of your system.
It really is sad to see those updates make such a huge negative impact in
your system performance because if not for this issue, I would be all in
favor of these updates.

-Tim

"Dave C." wrote in message =
k.net...
Maybe it's time to dump this crap and get a Mac. It may also be time
to treat the terrorists like terrorists before they take out a nuke
plant and execute them.


Every one of these bug, worms goes after M$. My next machine WILL be =
a
Mac! Fact.

=20
What the heck is that going to solve? It's not the machine, it's the =
OS.
Why dump the hardware when there's nothing wrong with it? You can =
always
switch to linux if you feel that strongly about this issue. -Dave

Linux - that 'OS' is a bigger laugh than my mother-in-law 'passing wind' =
into a trombone.

Will


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

See Below...

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"helmsman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 07:53:52 -0700, Steve wrote:
Excerpts from Ed Foster's Gripelog -
===================
It's a depressing irony, but the creep who wrote the Blaster worm may
very well have done Microsoft a tremendous favor.

Maybe it's time to dump this crap and get a Mac.
Macs are very user-friendly, and very secure. But they are very pricey, and
of no use to power users. Plus, most software isn't written for mac. And
you can't configure them as much, hardware and software.

It may also be time
to treat the terrorists like terrorists before they take out a nuke
plant and execute them.
I'm glad you don't make the decisions. I hate terrorists, but we can't go
around killing people. Lock them up, and throw away the key. Of course,
this is a very conterversial issue, so let's not get into that.


After all, what
better argument could the folks in Redmond have been handed to do what
they've always wanted to do - namely, force users to accept automatic
Windows updates.
It's their choice wheather to update or not. That statement is just
ignorant. Plus, Updates are there for a reason. My computer ran smoother
after installing SP1


Every one of these bug, worms goes after M$. My next machine WILL be a
Mac! Fact.
Good for you. As well, they go after Windows because they were written for
windows. Why? Because most people use Windows, so it'll infect more
people.

And if Apple is sooo great, then why does MS have to give them money to keep
them in business.

Big issue. The fact is, just like with counterfeit money, people find ways
to get around the security issues.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
It occured to me that if Microsoft really wanted to help the safety of
a lot more customers, they could write a more secure operating system
in the first place. Maybe they should focus on the basics instead of
trying to provide every imaginable application and utility built in to
the OS.

Steve wrote:

Excerpts from Ed Foster's Gripelog -

===================

It's a depressing irony, but the creep who wrote the Blaster worm may
very well have done Microsoft a tremendous favor. After all, what
better argument could the folks in Redmond have been handed to do what
they've always wanted to do - namely, force users to accept automatic
Windows updates.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post quoted Mike Nash, Microsoft
corporate vice president, as saying the company is "looking very
seriously" at requiring at least home users to have their operating
system automatically updated when Microsoft sends out a fix. Another
Microsoft security official was quoted as saying that having home and
small business users automatically receive and install software fixes
"would help the safety of a lot more customers."

Will Denny wrote:

"Dave C." wrote in message
k.net...
Maybe it's time to dump this crap and get a Mac. It may also be time
to treat the terrorists like terrorists before they take out a nuke
plant and execute them.


Every one of these bug, worms goes after M$. My next machine WILL
be a
Mac! Fact.


What the heck is that going to solve? It's not the machine, it's
the OS.
Why dump the hardware when there's nothing wrong with it? You can
always
switch to linux if you feel that strongly about this issue. -Dave

Linux - that 'OS' is a bigger laugh than my mother-in-law 'passing
wind' into a trombone.

That's why even MS uses Akamai Linux servers to protect their web site
from DoS attacks! LOL!

I guess MS is protecting their web site with your mother-in-law's farts!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

"Tim Miser" wrote:
I think part of the issue is that when XP was released, it was touted as the
most secure OS ever. Arguably, that has not been true. However, if you
ever do a clean install of XP before applying the updates, time how long it
takes XP to start up, and then time how long it takes IE to start up. Then
install the updates and see the huge difference in the speed of your system.

Not to mention the folks who buy a brand-new XP system, then have to
spend hours downloading updates on a dialup connection.

"PCyr" wrote in message
...
See Below...
"helmsman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 07:53:52 -0700, Steve wrote:
Excerpts from Ed Foster's Gripelog -
===================
It's a depressing irony, but the creep who wrote the Blaster worm may
very well have done Microsoft a tremendous favor.

Maybe it's time to dump this crap and get a Mac.
Macs are very user-friendly, and very secure

True.

. But they are very pricey, and

Which models? For what most people *really* do, an eMac (starting at $799)
would work perfectly. iBook ($999) if you needed mobility.

of no use to power users. Plus, most software isn't written for mac. And

"Most software" being... ? Games? I'll give you that, though that's getting
better. Anti virus utilities? MS Office... no, wait, that's on the Mac. Of
course, for what most people do, the included Appleworks does fine. And IIRC
reads Office formats.

you can't configure them as much, hardware and software.

But do you really NEED to? More RAM. Sure. Hard drives? Sure. The PowerMacs
are easy to open and get into - and aimed at the professional. The iMac and
eMac are aimed at the home/casual user, and are closer to the "computer
appliance."

And if Apple is sooo great, then why does MS have to give them money to
keep
them in business.

Ummm... they don't. Why did they give them money before (and get non voting
stock?) PR. One time. Over five years ago. And in the overall scheme of
things - it *wasn't* that much. The original iMac really turned things
around for them.

It's a bit of both.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Steve" wrote in message
...
"PCyr" wrote:
Macs are very user-friendly, and very secure.

Is the Mac OS really that much more secure than Windows? Or does its
apparent security have more to do with hackers spending their time
attacking the dominant OS?