Acer Display update

I've just checked if there were any Windows updates out there for my
setup and noticed an optional one for "Acer - Display - ACER S271HL,"
even though I don't have any Acer hardware. So I wonder why such updates
show up for me. I thought Windows Update was smart enough to pick only
applicable updates for a given setup. Was I wromg?

On 12/29/2011 6:34 PM, cameo wrote:
> I've just checked if there were any Windows updates out there for my
> setup and noticed an optional one for "Acer - Display - ACER S271HL,"
> even though I don't have any Acer hardware. So I wonder why such updates
> show up for me. I thought Windows Update was smart enough to pick only
> applicable updates for a given setup. Was I wromg?

Yes! And when it does guess right, the driver they have for you is most
likely worse than the manufactures driver. I could write page after page
of all of the mistakes that updates has caused. But Google is good for
that too. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

cameo wrote:
> I've just checked if there were any Windows updates out there for my
> setup and noticed an optional one for "Acer - Display - ACER S271HL,"
> even though I don't have any Acer hardware. So I wonder why such updates
> show up for me. I thought Windows Update was smart enough to pick only
> applicable updates for a given setup. Was I wromg?

In fact, Windows Update isn't "always smart enough". Never take irrelevant updates
if they are offered. If you need advice, post a question in the newsgroup
appropriate for the OS you're using.

There was one case, where an update like that, affected the ability
to input using the keyboard of the computer. Which makes the computer
difficult to fix. And that update was offered to *everyone* at the
time. It was only by one person being affected, and warning others,
that other people were protected from peril. Eventually, about
a day later, Microsoft removed that item from Windows Update.
But if everyone had blindly taken that optional update,
there would have been a lot of computers to repair.

That one was a HID (human interface) driver, a filter driver for touchpad,
and for some reason, Windows Update concluded every computer needed a
copy.

Security updates are relatively safe. They have a pretty good track
record. But optional hardware driver updates, do not have a good record.

Paul

On 12/29/2011 6:45 PM, Paul wrote:
> Security updates are relatively safe. They have a pretty good track
> record. But optional hardware driver updates, do not have a good record.
>
> Paul

Security updates are endless and futile. For example, Microsoft updates
can be up to 7 years too late (1). A much more reliable way is using a
real time AV scanner. Which scans everything coming in and everything
before it is ran (no security patches required). The only major flaw
here is zero day vulnerabilities (in this case usually about 24 hours).
But that is where sandboxes comes in for the shorter time. And sandboxes
are found in lots of products like Avast (AV) and Maxthon web browser.

(1) "However, it can be easily shown that this window can be several
years long. For example in 2008 Microsoft confirmed a vulnerability in
Internet Explorer, which affected some versions that were released in
2001. The date the vulnerability was first found by an attacker is not
known, however the vulnerability window in this case could have been up
to 7 years."

Zero-day attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 29 Dec 2011, BillW50 <> wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

> Security updates are endless and futile.

Vaccinations are endless and futile. For example, ya never know what
kind of flu is coming, so why bother?

Bathing, washing clothes, cleaning house are endless and futile. For
example, everything's just gonna get dirty again, so why bother?

Getting rid of that pesky lead paint is futile. For example, no little
kid has eaten any yet, so why bother?

Taking advantage of your auto manufacturer's safety recalls is endless
and futile. For example, your car hasn't caught fire yet, and the
brakes still work, so why bother?

On 12/29/2011 7:34 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2011, BillW50<> wrote in
> alt.windows7.general:
>
>> Security updates are endless and futile.
>
> Vaccinations are endless and futile. For example, ya never know what
> kind of flu is coming, so why bother?

Apples and oranges. Wouldn't one vaccination that covers everything far
better than just one strain which they sometimes get wrong anyway and
just wasted your time?

As that is exactly the security method I use. As it doesn't matter how
many security holes there are in an OS. As that method of protection
just doesn't work. And I think Microsoft knows this too. As they sure
don't place a high priority on them especially if they let them exist
for up to 7 years later.

> Bathing, washing clothes, cleaning house are endless and futile. For
> example, everything's just gonna get dirty again, so why bother?

No that is different as that is part of maintenance. But if you had a
Windows system that is impossible to be infected anyway, wouldn't that
be better than security updates while chasing after a carrot on a string?

> Getting rid of that pesky lead paint is futile. For example, no little
> kid has eaten any yet, so why bother?

No I am all for getting lead out of paint.

Are you for the EU suing Microsoft for about 500 million dollars because
they bundled Windows Media Player into Windows? The EU claimed that was
unfair and even though I am sure Microsoft spend a lot of money to fight
it, the EU still won.

So Microsoft ended up paying the fine and releasing a version of Windows
without the WMP. And a big whoop-de-doo about 3,000 people actually
bought this version. Sounds like Microsoft learned a hard expensive
lesson, eh?

Hell no! While Microsoft wrote the check for the fine, they didn't
actually pay for it. That isn't how big business works. Everybody who
buys Microsoft products pays for it. As Microsoft just adds it to the
cost of their products. So really, it wasn't a fine against Microsoft,
but a tax on everybody in the whole world who uses Microsoft products.
And frankly IMHO, the EU should be asked to pay for this crime.

> Taking advantage of your auto manufacturer's safety recalls is endless
> and futile. For example, your car hasn't caught fire yet, and the
> brakes still work, so why bother?

How far do you want to go here? The older I get, the more I hate child
proof containers. While they are somewhat child proof, they are also
elderly proof too. I understand wanting to protect the home with
children in the home. But why protect those who doesn't have children
around and make them suffer too?

I have a real problem with one stupid person doing something dumb,
changing anything and making everybody else suffer for their stupidly.
As why not let the stupid one pay the price and leave the rest of us who
knows better alone?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 12/29/2011 4:45 PM, Paul wrote:
> In fact, Windows Update isn't "always smart enough". Never take
> irrelevant updates
> if they are offered. If you need advice, post a question in the newsgroup
> appropriate for the OS you're using.
>
> There was one case, where an update like that, affected the ability
> to input using the keyboard of the computer. Which makes the computer
> difficult to fix. And that update was offered to *everyone* at the
> time. It was only by one person being affected, and warning others,
> that other people were protected from peril. Eventually, about
> a day later, Microsoft removed that item from Windows Update.
> But if everyone had blindly taken that optional update,
> there would have been a lot of computers to repair.
>
> That one was a HID (human interface) driver, a filter driver for touchpad,
> and for some reason, Windows Update concluded every computer needed a
> copy.
>
> Security updates are relatively safe. They have a pretty good track
> record. But optional hardware driver updates, do not have a good record.

OK, thanks. I'll then just ignore that optional update.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:22:39 -0600, BillW50 <> wrote:

>The older I get, the more I hate child
>proof containers. While they are somewhat child proof, they are also
>elderly proof too.

The next time you get a prescription filled, just let them know that
you don't want or need child proof containers. They'll be happy to
give you the easy open kind.

--

Char Jackson

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:22:39 -0600, BillW50 <> wrote:

>As that is exactly the security method I use. As it doesn't matter how
>many security holes there are in an OS. As that method of protection
>just doesn't work. And I think Microsoft knows this too. As they sure
>don't place a high priority on them especially if they let them exist
>for up to 7 years later.

Does every sentence need to start with AS?


PT Taylor

BillW50 wrote:
> On 12/29/2011 7:34 PM, Nil wrote:
>> On 29 Dec 2011, BillW50<> wrote in
>> alt.windows7.general:
>>
>>> Security updates are endless and futile.
>>
>> Vaccinations are endless and futile. For example, ya never know what
>> kind of flu is coming, so why bother?
>
> Apples and oranges. Wouldn't one vaccination that covers everything far
> better than just one strain which they sometimes get wrong anyway and
> just wasted your time?
>

Take a flu shot to get the flu. Never had a flu shot in my life and
have never gotten the flu. The problem with flu shots, as my family
doctor pointed out, is that there are so many strains of the virus. The
usual flu-shot only covers one strain, not many.