Confused about todays updates

Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
Both were unchecked.
I only have version 4 client installed.
Do I really need them ?

Thanks


KenW

Ken1943 wrote:

> Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
> Both were unchecked.
> I only have version 4 client installed.
> Do I really need them ?

Win7 comes *with* framework version 3.5 (and quite possibly versions
1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 too) so if you've also installed version 4.0, you need
both, if you want to be up-to-date.

On 12/29/2011 3:24 PM, Ken1943 wrote:
> Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
> Both were unchecked.
> I only have version 4 client installed.
> Do I really need them ?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> KenW

If you don't have any applications that requires NET4, no. And if you
don't have any applications that use NET period, then you don't need any
version of NET.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:41:24 +0000, Andy Burns
<> wrote:

>Ken1943 wrote:
>
>> Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
>> Both were unchecked.
>> I only have version 4 client installed.
>> Do I really need them ?
>
>Win7 comes *with* framework version 3.5 (and quite possibly versions
>1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 too) so if you've also installed version 4.0, you need
>both, if you want to be up-to-date.

Might as well install them. Can't hurt.


KenW

On 12/29/2011 3:52 PM, Ken1943 wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:41:24 +0000, Andy Burns
> <> wrote:
>
>> Ken1943 wrote:
>>
>>> Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
>>> Both were unchecked.
>>> I only have version 4 client installed.
>>> Do I really need them ?
>>
>> Win7 comes *with* framework version 3.5 (and quite possibly versions
>> 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 too) so if you've also installed version 4.0, you need
>> both, if you want to be up-to-date.
>
> Might as well install them. Can't hurt.
>
>
> KenW

Never been bitten by updates before, I take it? Anytime you modify an
OS, you have a chance of breaking things like drivers and applications.
And sometimes the whole OS can break.

I believe in experimentation. And I have lots of computers here and I
stopped updating half of them a few years ago. And the ones that I
stopped updating run better than the ones that I religiously update all
of the time. And the ones that I update, I often have to fix it to get
it running again. The ones that isn't updated, continue to run just fine.

There is an old saying that don't fix what isn't broken. But many
continue to fix what isn't broken all of the time and then wonder why
they have problems. ;-)

It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
somebody else and not you.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

BillW50 wrote:

> It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
> problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
> somebody else and not you.

Your attitude to updates is well(?) known :-)

Fine, if you have several computers and can afford to experiment, fubar
the occasional one and form a view on which updates are serious enough
that you need them. But for Joe Bloggs, I suspect taking what the maker
recommends is less likely to end in tears ...

On 12/29/2011 4:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
>> problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
>> somebody else and not you.
>
> Your attitude to updates is well(?) known :-)
>
> Fine, if you have several computers and can afford to experiment, fubar
> the occasional one and form a view on which updates are serious enough
> that you need them. But for Joe Bloggs, I suspect taking what the maker
> recommends is less likely to end in tears ...

Microsoft also recommended Windows ME, Vista, and MS Bob too. And they
think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15% of the bad stuff)
and Windows Live Mail is all you need. Now if you have any doubts about
Microsoft wisdom at all, I think you should explorer that idea further.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v9.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

BillW50 wrote:

> Microsoft [...] think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15%
> of the bad stuff)

I'd be interested in any reference(s) to support that ...

> if you have any doubts about
> Microsoft wisdom at all, I think you should explorer that idea further.

If you take that to its logical conclusion, you'd not use Microsoft
software at all.

Never had any problems with updates.

>On 12/29/2011 3:52 PM, Ken1943 wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:41:24 +0000, Andy Burns
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken1943 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
>>>> Both were unchecked.
>>>> I only have version 4 client installed.
>>>> Do I really need them ?
>>>
>>> Win7 comes *with* framework version 3.5 (and quite possibly versions
>>> 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 too) so if you've also installed version 4.0, you need
>>> both, if you want to be up-to-date.
>>
>> Might as well install them. Can't hurt.
>>
>>
>> KenW
>
>Never been bitten by updates before, I take it? Anytime you modify an
>OS, you have a chance of breaking things like drivers and applications.
>And sometimes the whole OS can break.
>
>I believe in experimentation. And I have lots of computers here and I
>stopped updating half of them a few years ago. And the ones that I
>stopped updating run better than the ones that I religiously update all
>of the time. And the ones that I update, I often have to fix it to get
>it running again. The ones that isn't updated, continue to run just fine.
>
>There is an old saying that don't fix what isn't broken. But many
>continue to fix what isn't broken all of the time and then wonder why
>they have problems. ;-)
>
>It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
>problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
>somebody else and not you.


KenW

On 12/29/2011 4:31 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> Microsoft [...] think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15%
>> of the bad stuff)
>
> I'd be interested in any reference(s) to support that ...

I read it on one of the security websites a few days ago. I didn't find
it, but I found this.

Bestsecuritytips found Microsoft only 25% effective.

Microsoft Defender worst rootkit remover?
http://www.bestsecuritytips.com/news...storyid+62.htm

>> if you have any doubts about
>> Microsoft wisdom at all, I think you should explorer that idea further.
>
> If you take that to its logical conclusion, you'd not use Microsoft
> software at all.

Why? Just because Microsoft wisdom isn't too bright, doesn't mean that
other are. Luckily I can fix everything they have broken so far. But
then again I have a knack for fixing broken things. ;-)

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