IF XP HAD 135 updates in its history

and everyone liked it. Win 7 is only 5 months old and it surpasses XP what
gives

I don't bother to install any updates post SP3. PERIOD. They are useless
and they only succeed to slow down your system.


"Jon Pope" <> wrote in message
news:hoeuts$adm$...
> and everyone liked it. Win 7 is only 5 months old and it surpasses XP what
> gives

"LD55ZRA" <> wrote in message
news:hof0aj$cc3$...
>
> I don't bother to install any updates post SP3. PERIOD. They are useless
> and they only succeed to slow down your system.
>

Another idiot. People like you are one of the reasons the internet is awash
with WINDOWS viruses and malware - because you don't care twopence about
security.

I agree with you Gordon. I just think its funny that MS says that Win 7 is
more secure. The way things are going with 7 we might need 2700 updates in
the 10 year history

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:hof5ot$mij$...
>
> "LD55ZRA" <> wrote in message
> news:hof0aj$cc3$...
>>
>> I don't bother to install any updates post SP3. PERIOD. They are
>> useless and they only succeed to slow down your system.
>>
>
> Another idiot. People like you are one of the reasons the internet is
> awash with WINDOWS viruses and malware - because you don't care twopence
> about security.

"Jon Pope" <> wrote in message
news:hoffcb$810$...
> I agree with you Gordon. I just think its funny that MS says that Win 7 is
> more secure. The way things are going with 7 we might need 2700 updates in
> the 10 year history
>

Doesn't worry me about the number of updates - what DOES concern me is that
as the security updates are issued for a specific reason - to make the OS
more secure - people who deliberately don't install them are not just
putting themselves at risk , but are creating a potential problem for
others.

"Jon Pope" <> wrote in message
news:hoffcb$810$...
> I agree with you Gordon. I just think its funny that MS says that Win 7 is
> more secure. The way things are going with 7 we might need 2700 updates in
> the 10 year history
>

That's why it is more secure.
--

"Slap" <> wrote in
news:rIHqn.109413$:

>
> "Jon Pope" <> wrote in message
> news:hoffcb$810$...
>> I agree with you Gordon. I just think its funny that MS
>> says that Win 7 is more secure. The way things are going
>> with 7 we might need 2700 updates in the 10 year history
>>
>
> That's why it is more secure.

Hacker exploits IE8 on Windows 7 to win Pwn2Own
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5855&tag=nl.e589

Pwn2Own hack topples Firefox on Windows
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5865&tag=nl.e589

Both brand new exploits that MS doesn't even know any technical
details about yet...

"ASLR+DEP are held up as significant roadblocks to thwart
malware attacks on the newest versions of Windows but, as this
contest shows, skilled hackers with enough motivation and
resources can bypass those mitigations easily."

As both hacks completely bypassed both ASLR + DEP.

Gordon wrote:

>
> "LD55ZRA" <> wrote in message
> news:hof0aj$cc3$...
>
>>
>> I don't bother to install any updates post SP3. PERIOD. They are
>> useless and they only succeed to slow down your system.
>>
>
> Another idiot. People like you are one of the reasons the internet is
> awash with WINDOWS viruses and malware - because you don't care
> twopence about security.

If the "internet is awash with WINDOWS viruses and malware" then clearly
the updates you are installing very religiously month after month aren't
working. and this is exactly what I am saying! Thank you for proving my
point. You will protect your self by making sure you don't install any
updates and instead reconfigure your Windows firewall such that no
exceptions is allowed.

You will learn a thing or two from me if you stop taking advice from
Microsoft Valuable Pigs of which you are very fond of.

Jon Pope wrote:

> I agree with you Gordon. I just think its funny that MS says that Win
> 7 is more secure. The way things are going with 7 we might need 2700
> updates in the 10 year history
>
>
Another Steve Ballmer's ass licker.

Gordon wrote:

>
> what DOES concern me is that as the security updates are issued for a
> specific reason - -

That reason is to destabilize your system so that you rush to your local
store and buy a new system with Windows 7 even if you don't need it
immediately.

> people who deliberately don't install them are not just putting
> themselves at risk , but are creating a potential problem for others.

Well in that case you are at fault for not being able to look after
system. You can't blame the virus writers for infecting your system or
for that matter blame people like me who bother with useless updates;
Blame yourself and your advisers who told you to install all useless
updates from Microsoft.