If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
"Ben Myers" wrote in message
... Daddy wrote: RnR wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:18:40 -0400, Daddy wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Daddy wrote: RnR wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT), "William R. Walsh" wrote: Hi! Really? Tell that to the people who were left with unbootable computers after the SP3 update. This happened to people who had primarily HP Desktops That was quite some time ago, and I believe fixes have since been delivered. You highlighted the problem when you said "HP Desktops". (I hate most of their computer hardware with a passion.) HP certainly loves their preloaded images and crapware. It's not hard to believe (with regard to the plethora of system models they have) that someone said "oh look here's a good idea to save us the trouble of producing a separate image for each system" when it wasn't such a good idea. SP3 was *not* the problem--someone's stupidity and laziness was. I don't mean to sound unapologetic or harsh, but people running the factory installed software on their computer almost have it coming. Install it yourself and be just that much more certain that it is done right--and that only what you want to have is there. Microsoft's own service pack release notes say to turn off (and quite possibly to also update) any anti-virus software prior to applying the Service Pack. Now who reads that? :-) The following questions should always be asked before an upgrade of this magnitude is performed: 1. Do I have time to troubleshoot this if it doesn't work? 2. Do I have a backup of my information or another computer to work with if there is a problem? 3. Does this have to happen right now? (In the case of SP3, that answer is presently "no".) William The reason why I try to avoid MS updates with a passion. And anyone tells me how vunerable I am for doing this will just make me laugh (not directed at you). Lol... The reason you avoid Microsoft updates is because you don't know how to install them, don't know how or don't want to operate your computer in a supported manner, don't know how to maintain your computer, and/or don't know how to keep malware away. These are the things that cause updates to damage a computer. As for how vulnerable your computer is without the updates...who cares? It's not my data that's at risk. Daddy Sheesh! Acting out your role as Daddy and scolding a child, or what? There are two sides to the Windows Update controversy here. One is that Microsoft has had a lousy track record putting out patches and updates that mess up a system, and then, Whoops! They put out a correction. True fact. Happened all too often in the early days of XP. The other side is that Microsoft has tried to get better at this patch process and actually succeeded, although people who update regularly get harrassed again and again to install Windows Genuine Advantage. Heavens! There may be a software pirate among us! Whether to update or not all depends on how much one trusts Microsoft's technical knowhow and how much personal information is at stake. ... Ben Myers My Dimension 4500 is almost nine years old and has received 341 updates with no problems whatsoever. And I have Windows Genuine Advantage, which has never bugged me about anything. No one is saying that Microsoft Update is perfect. But when people complain about it in newsgroups and online forums, most of the time they're the author of their own troubles, not Microsoft. In computing, as in life, there are lots of things you don't like. (Who's idea was the Alternative Minimum Tax?) But as any Daddy knows, you can't shirk your responsibilities by blaming your troubles on everyone else. Daddy Daddy, think as you may but simply put, do you feel safer after 341 updates? Will it make you feel safer if you get 342 updates instead? And do you think it is possible for a person who installs software each year that the 300+ updates might cause problems eventually. If you want to trust MS, that's your business. I prefer to live a simpler, less stressful life. As you wish, RnR. For the record, I actually do feel safer after all those updates. And updates give me zero stress, since I know how to deal with them. Another source of comfort: If an update ever did go badly, I would simply restore my system partition from that day's image. (For major upgrades I make an image before upgrading.) Something else that you might consider: Maybe you don't care if your computer gets infected - that's your right - but perhaps you would care about all the other computers that your computer can infect? Daddy There are people who practice safe computing without all the updates and anti-virus and anti-malware and anti-everything else. And they don't even use a condom while at their computer. There is no substitute for actually thinking for a bit before responding to that email from the guy wanting to get millions out of Nigeria or that browser pop-up offering something for nothing... Ben Myers Ben Could you not say that quite so loud? To date, I have no acquired a half dozen clients who despite repeated warnings and service calls to clean up their systems, simple can not resist clicking on any "Special Offer (etc.)" that pops up on their screen, It's the same old drill almost everytime, but I repeatedly warn them as to what is and is not safe. I feel I have done my best to teach them how to protect themselves, but to no avail. In all cases I have exceeded due diligence and still they persist. On the upside, I get paid and for a few weeks/months their systems run reasonably well until the gunk builds up or they click on a really bad item. Last week I actually saw Vostro with 2 Gb of RAM that had so much ad/malware that you couldn't see the desk top for all of the pop-ups. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
Kevin Childers wrote:
"Ben Myers" wrote in message ... Daddy wrote: RnR wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:18:40 -0400, Daddy wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Daddy wrote: RnR wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT), "William R. Walsh" wrote: Hi! Really? Tell that to the people who were left with unbootable computers after the SP3 update. This happened to people who had primarily HP Desktops That was quite some time ago, and I believe fixes have since been delivered. You highlighted the problem when you said "HP Desktops". (I hate most of their computer hardware with a passion.) HP certainly loves their preloaded images and crapware. It's not hard to believe (with regard to the plethora of system models they have) that someone said "oh look here's a good idea to save us the trouble of producing a separate image for each system" when it wasn't such a good idea. SP3 was *not* the problem--someone's stupidity and laziness was. I don't mean to sound unapologetic or harsh, but people running the factory installed software on their computer almost have it coming. Install it yourself and be just that much more certain that it is done right--and that only what you want to have is there. Microsoft's own service pack release notes say to turn off (and quite possibly to also update) any anti-virus software prior to applying the Service Pack. Now who reads that? :-) The following questions should always be asked before an upgrade of this magnitude is performed: 1. Do I have time to troubleshoot this if it doesn't work? 2. Do I have a backup of my information or another computer to work with if there is a problem? 3. Does this have to happen right now? (In the case of SP3, that answer is presently "no".) William The reason why I try to avoid MS updates with a passion. And anyone tells me how vunerable I am for doing this will just make me laugh (not directed at you). Lol... The reason you avoid Microsoft updates is because you don't know how to install them, don't know how or don't want to operate your computer in a supported manner, don't know how to maintain your computer, and/or don't know how to keep malware away. These are the things that cause updates to damage a computer. As for how vulnerable your computer is without the updates...who cares? It's not my data that's at risk. Daddy Sheesh! Acting out your role as Daddy and scolding a child, or what? There are two sides to the Windows Update controversy here. One is that Microsoft has had a lousy track record putting out patches and updates that mess up a system, and then, Whoops! They put out a correction. True fact. Happened all too often in the early days of XP. The other side is that Microsoft has tried to get better at this patch process and actually succeeded, although people who update regularly get harrassed again and again to install Windows Genuine Advantage. Heavens! There may be a software pirate among us! Whether to update or not all depends on how much one trusts Microsoft's technical knowhow and how much personal information is at stake. ... Ben Myers My Dimension 4500 is almost nine years old and has received 341 updates with no problems whatsoever. And I have Windows Genuine Advantage, which has never bugged me about anything. No one is saying that Microsoft Update is perfect. But when people complain about it in newsgroups and online forums, most of the time they're the author of their own troubles, not Microsoft. In computing, as in life, there are lots of things you don't like. (Who's idea was the Alternative Minimum Tax?) But as any Daddy knows, you can't shirk your responsibilities by blaming your troubles on everyone else. Daddy Daddy, think as you may but simply put, do you feel safer after 341 updates? Will it make you feel safer if you get 342 updates instead? And do you think it is possible for a person who installs software each year that the 300+ updates might cause problems eventually. If you want to trust MS, that's your business. I prefer to live a simpler, less stressful life. As you wish, RnR. For the record, I actually do feel safer after all those updates. And updates give me zero stress, since I know how to deal with them. Another source of comfort: If an update ever did go badly, I would simply restore my system partition from that day's image. (For major upgrades I make an image before upgrading.) Something else that you might consider: Maybe you don't care if your computer gets infected - that's your right - but perhaps you would care about all the other computers that your computer can infect? Daddy There are people who practice safe computing without all the updates and anti-virus and anti-malware and anti-everything else. And they don't even use a condom while at their computer. There is no substitute for actually thinking for a bit before responding to that email from the guy wanting to get millions out of Nigeria or that browser pop-up offering something for nothing... Ben Myers Ben Could you not say that quite so loud? To date, I have no acquired a half dozen clients who despite repeated warnings and service calls to clean up their systems, simple can not resist clicking on any "Special Offer (etc.)" that pops up on their screen, It's the same old drill almost everytime, but I repeatedly warn them as to what is and is not safe. I feel I have done my best to teach them how to protect themselves, but to no avail. In all cases I have exceeded due diligence and still they persist. On the upside, I get paid and for a few weeks/months their systems run reasonably well until the gunk builds up or they click on a really bad item. Last week I actually saw Vostro with 2 Gb of RAM that had so much ad/malware that you couldn't see the desk top for all of the pop-ups. KC, I, too, have clients who click before they think. My assumption is that they are not astute enough to access usenet newsgroups, or maybe just not graybeards who have known about usenet for a long time. I didn't mean to undercut your business. Or mine, as evidenced by computers raining out of the clouds here this week... Ben |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:28:31 -0400, Daddy
wrote: 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 Daddy, with all due respect, I prefer to trust the masses on the internet than the few trade mags. Of course you can trust who you please but when you read a lot as I do on the net and been around a while (also since the DOS days.... aka Wolverton books from which I learned from then), you begin to see patterns and learn where to tread upon and away from. As I said, we just have different philosophies about this subject. Going off a little on what Ben spoke of, I was alarmed years ago when I read that as Ben pointed out, many usenet posters said Consumer Reports was biased to their advertisers despite what they claimed. Now I guess you can believe as you please but I figured Consumer Reports had a reason to claim innocence while I figured why would so many posters claim otherwise unless they might have some basis to their opinion. And I'm not just talking of a few posters neither. So Ben may very well be telling the truth. If you had a magazine to run and one advertiser paid you lots of money to advertise in your mag, would you want to rock their boat and see the advertising dollars go elsewhere??? I know I wouldn't. Unfortunately that creates a conflict of interest as Ben was pointing out. And you are probably right... we probably have commies, gays, obese people and lots of other types in our government. I'm leaving the US tho when we get a woman for President and I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen in the next 16 years or so g. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
In ,
RnR typed on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:13:20 -0500: Daddy, with all due respect, I prefer to trust the masses on the internet than the few trade mags. Of course you can trust who you please but when you read a lot as I do on the net and been around a while (also since the DOS days.... aka Wolverton books from which I learned from then), you begin to see patterns and learn where to tread upon and away from. As I said, we just have different philosophies about this subject. Being an electronic engineer, I don't have a lot of respect for journalists. Most of them seem to just know enough to be dangerous. The best of both worlds IMHO is an engineer who is also a writer. Although if they are funded by advertisers, they are almost always biased if they want to keep their job. Going off a little on what Ben spoke of, I was alarmed years ago when I read that as Ben pointed out, many usenet posters said Consumer Reports was biased to their advertisers despite what they claimed. Now I guess you can believe as you please but I figured Consumer Reports had a reason to claim innocence while I figured why would so many posters claim otherwise unless they might have some basis to their opinion. And I'm not just talking of a few posters neither. So Ben may very well be telling the truth. If you had a magazine to run and one advertiser paid you lots of money to advertise in your mag, would you want to rock their boat and see the advertising dollars go elsewhere??? I know I wouldn't. Unfortunately that creates a conflict of interest as Ben was pointing out. Wait! What is this about Consumer Reports? They don't accept advertising. So this shouldn't be a problem. Although my personal beef with Consumer Reports are they are too amateurish IMHO. As I feel they need some real engineers. And you are probably right... we probably have commies, gays, obese people and lots of other types in our government. I'm leaving the US tho when we get a woman for President and I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen in the next 16 years or so g. I am not too worried about the government. As the US is probably headed for another civil war and it will straighten itself out in time. I hear tell that the FBI views anybody who doesn't like what the government is doing as fanatics and are a danger to National Security. Although I see these same people as trying to keep the US Constitution alive. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?
It would seem here...you need to get a life. And you need to grow-
up...to be daddy you were intended to be. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is "USB-drive time bomb" for real? | Danny[_4_] | Storage (alternative) | 6 | March 3rd 09 05:23 AM |
When will the Intel "real" quad-core processor come out? | phuile | General | 20 | February 9th 07 01:52 AM |
The Real Reason "Why To Buy A Dell" almost to funny ( Video-Clip ) | [email protected] | Dell Computers | 5 | March 24th 06 04:30 PM |
The Real Reason "Why To Buy A Dell" almost to funny ( Video-Clip ) | [email protected] | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | March 23rd 06 12:51 PM |
The Real Reason "Why To Buy A Dell" almost to funny ( Video-Clip ) | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 0 | March 23rd 06 07:25 AM |