D
DanS
And.....this was just one case of an ongoing battle you and your customers had with MS
updates repetitely over the years ?
updates repetitely over the years ?
D
DanS
That's fine.
I was KF'd by a Lintard version of BillW because I refused to
accept the "fact" that he knew everything about Windows, yet
hadn't used any version of Windows since NT4, and was only
exposed to XP a few times at a friends house...and nothing
since.
I've got the post right here...it's quite funny.......
(Me)
( Copied from one of his replies.....Yes, I have only used Windows NT for about 2 years
- in which time I dug into the Registry and tweaked it far more than any other Windows
user would have even dared to do - and I have only used Windows 3.x for
about 6 months on my _own_ computer.)
(Me)
Reading up on Windows means virtually nothing really.
Unless of course, you agree that it means that people that
have barely ever used Linux, but 'read up on it once in a
while' have valid opinions against it too.
If not, you *are* a hypocrite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that last sentence is what set him off.....
...."Oh, I see, is /that/ how you're going to play your cards now? Instead
of just debating, throw in a few ad hominem innuendos - and since
they're only innuendos, you can weasel your way out of them again -
just to create an atmosphere in which you can undermine my credibility
as a a debater? Yes, it says "if not", but it also says "are" in bold."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, he completely took my last sentence out of context and believed I was
calling him a hypocrite. It was up to him to tell me if he was or not. And yes, he is.
He's KF'd me for a long time now, and unlike what you did, he purposely replies to me,
and at least one other person, through other peoples replies, making claims about how
*I* am, and I'm deranged, and need professional help, and yadda yadda yadda....yet
with me being KF'd by him, that leaves no way for me to address him to defend myself.
What makes this even funnier, is that I accidentally...accidentally mind you, ran across
an old thread in another group he was involved in, in which a person had *him* KFd,
and kept attacking him and *he* couldn't reply to defend *himself*. He considered this
behavior cowardice and low. Low and behold, when I bring this up to him, and start
calling him low and cowardly, he then replies through other posters that that was a
completely different thing, that was several years ago, and that didn't apply to this
situation.
Isn't it funny how when you apply someone *else's* logic to your side of an argument, it
doesn't work for them and they get bent way out of shape?
One claim he made that he refused to provide a cite for was that "back in the Win9x
days, MS officially recommended that you restart you computer after changing the
desktop background color."
Have you KF'd Gignews ? I'm not too "up" on KFs, expecially
with Outlook Express.
R
Robert Sudbury
Quite the opposite. Microsoft's Windows Update (read WSUS) has been for the
most part a positive experience.
The frustrating part for the last two years has been managing Windows
7/2008r2 issues not dealt with by updates released via Windows Updates; ie:
HotFixes.
[Robert]
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6773 (20120106) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
most part a positive experience.
The frustrating part for the last two years has been managing Windows
7/2008r2 issues not dealt with by updates released via Windows Updates; ie:
HotFixes.
--DanS said:
[Robert]
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6773 (20120106) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
G
Gene E. Bloch
You must mean me. My evidence? I am still reading this whole thread, so
obviously I need to resume my meds - and somehow, you knew.
C
Char Jackson
You must mean me. My evidence? I am still reading this whole thread, so
obviously I need to resume my meds - and somehow, you knew.
B
BillW50
In
of experience and education are often our mentors as well.
years later. And anyway I am just getting started. And I see today
people trying to solve problems that were solved decades ago. As they
say history repeats itself. And this is so true even in the computer
industry. It seems to me some people just never learn. And we need to
study the past to know why we do the things we do today.
belief that you have to update or be screwed is incorrect. As that isn't
always the case at all. But most won't buy that since it is impossible
for them to think outside of the box.
is the marketing department job to convince their customers that older
versions are crap and only the latest and greatest products are the ones
you want and need. And apparently they do a fine job of it, as that is
what most computer users believe too. There are still a few companies
that still work honestly like many did in the past like Bitsum.
About Bitsum Technologies
http://bitsum.com/about.php
them I don't, some of them I can't, and some of them I do. People today
somehow believe if you don't keep your system updated, you will be
plagued by malware, instabilities, compatibility problems, etc.
But that isn't how experts thought in years past. Like in the 80's, they
would say don't update if it doesn't fix a problem you are having. And
say things like older versions were more reliable because all of the
bugs were well known and were fixed and/or worked around by then. They
didn't say never get newer versions, just that don't upgrade if it
doesn't offer you anything. Interesting a lot of times they didn't.
Usually you got the same thing as before, but with more bloat.
I don't know what exactly happened today. But all of the wisdom of
experts of the past (my mentors) appears to be lost. So has common
sense. But you know how marketing works, they try to brainwash you into
thinking newer is always better. And so-called experts of today seem to
be far less intelligent than experts in the computer industry of the
past.
So true. But on the flipside it is also true some individuals with lotsRobert said:
of experience and education are often our mentors as well.
Really? The truth about this stuff often doesn't come out until 6-10
years later. And anyway I am just getting started. And I see today
people trying to solve problems that were solved decades ago. As they
say history repeats itself. And this is so true even in the computer
industry. It seems to me some people just never learn. And we need to
study the past to know why we do the things we do today.
I am not trying to convert 4 billion users. All I am saying is the
belief that you have to update or be screwed is incorrect. As that isn't
always the case at all. But most won't buy that since it is impossible
for them to think outside of the box.
Yes and that is why companies like Microsoft does what they do. And it
is the marketing department job to convince their customers that older
versions are crap and only the latest and greatest products are the ones
you want and need. And apparently they do a fine job of it, as that is
what most computer users believe too. There are still a few companies
that still work honestly like many did in the past like Bitsum.
About Bitsum Technologies
http://bitsum.com/about.php
Why do you believe I don't update any of my Windows systems? Some of
them I don't, some of them I can't, and some of them I do. People today
somehow believe if you don't keep your system updated, you will be
plagued by malware, instabilities, compatibility problems, etc.
But that isn't how experts thought in years past. Like in the 80's, they
would say don't update if it doesn't fix a problem you are having. And
say things like older versions were more reliable because all of the
bugs were well known and were fixed and/or worked around by then. They
didn't say never get newer versions, just that don't upgrade if it
doesn't offer you anything. Interesting a lot of times they didn't.
Usually you got the same thing as before, but with more bloat.
I don't know what exactly happened today. But all of the wisdom of
experts of the past (my mentors) appears to be lost. So has common
sense. But you know how marketing works, they try to brainwash you into
thinking newer is always better. And so-called experts of today seem to
be far less intelligent than experts in the computer industry of the
past.
B
BillW50
In
departments were frantic.
of finger pointing. HP blamed Microsoft, Microsoft blamed HP. Apparently
you only see what you want to see. And if it was really HP's fault (even
though everybody does what they did), then why did Microsoft fix it? If
Microsoft was blameless, just leave SP3 alone and fix nothing.
Windows XP SP3 Sows Havoc, Users Complain
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/207600950
It's not uncommon for major operating system
updates to cause problems. Typically, the glitches
are due to conflicts with software, such as
drivers, system files, or applications already
resident on the user's PC. Microsoft has yet to
indicate whether it will issue an update to
address some of the problems, though it has done
so with previous updates.
What? Microsoft has issued an update to an update to issue problems with
the original update before? SAY IT ISN'T SO DAN!
Blame XP SP3 problems on Microsoft, Symantec says
http://www.scmagazine.com/blame-xp-sp3-problems-on-microsoft-symantec-says/article/110556/
What others besides HP are having issues with SP3 too? SAY IT ISN'T SO
DAN!
Windows XP SP3 Problems Continue
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Windows-XP-SP3-Problems-Continue/
Hmm... Microsoft is fixing SP3. Why did they fix SP3 Dan if it isn't
broke? They also mentioned that HP method wasn't a problem with anything
except SP3. Gee all of the zillions of things you can install on a
computer and the one out of a zillion that causes a problem was one
single Windows update. Think about it Dan.
Issues with XP SP3 plague many - TechSpot News
http://www.techspot.com/news/29993-issues-with-xp-sp3-plague-many.html
They claim, "... every service pack release has had some serious growing
pains". SAY IT ISN'T SO DAN! Every single one? And it is you who
believes I am in denial. ;-)
But it was wide spread havoc. Corporations, home users, and ITDanS said:
departments were frantic.
Because I think outside of the box Dan. And I also read there was a lot
of finger pointing. HP blamed Microsoft, Microsoft blamed HP. Apparently
you only see what you want to see. And if it was really HP's fault (even
though everybody does what they did), then why did Microsoft fix it? If
Microsoft was blameless, just leave SP3 alone and fix nothing.
How about InformationWeek?
Windows XP SP3 Sows Havoc, Users Complain
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/207600950
It's not uncommon for major operating system
updates to cause problems. Typically, the glitches
are due to conflicts with software, such as
drivers, system files, or applications already
resident on the user's PC. Microsoft has yet to
indicate whether it will issue an update to
address some of the problems, though it has done
so with previous updates.
What? Microsoft has issued an update to an update to issue problems with
the original update before? SAY IT ISN'T SO DAN!
Blame XP SP3 problems on Microsoft, Symantec says
http://www.scmagazine.com/blame-xp-sp3-problems-on-microsoft-symantec-says/article/110556/
What others besides HP are having issues with SP3 too? SAY IT ISN'T SO
DAN!
Windows XP SP3 Problems Continue
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Windows-XP-SP3-Problems-Continue/
Hmm... Microsoft is fixing SP3. Why did they fix SP3 Dan if it isn't
broke? They also mentioned that HP method wasn't a problem with anything
except SP3. Gee all of the zillions of things you can install on a
computer and the one out of a zillion that causes a problem was one
single Windows update. Think about it Dan.
Issues with XP SP3 plague many - TechSpot News
http://www.techspot.com/news/29993-issues-with-xp-sp3-plague-many.html
They claim, "... every service pack release has had some serious growing
pains". SAY IT ISN'T SO DAN! Every single one? And it is you who
believes I am in denial. ;-)
B
BillW50
In
I am glad I am not the only one who remembers these things. ;-)Shoe said:
B
BillW50
In
DOS would not be compatible with the next release of Windows
known as Windows 3.1 .... The market perceived that it was
critical for an operating system to support Windows; therefore
Microsoft's statements that DR DOS could not do so substantially
undercut Novell's efforts to penetrate the DOS Market.
Microsoft reinforced this misleading impression of
incompatibility between DR DOS and Windows 3.1, when, beginning
in December, 1991, Microsoft released beta versions of Windows
3.1 containing code that generated error messages when Windows
3.1 ran on top of DR DOS rather than MS-DOS.
Microsoft created these error messages solely for the purpose of
creating the impression that DR DOS would be incompatible with
Windows in order to dissuade customers from purchasing DR DOS.
Caldera's lawsuit also states that Microsoft refused to provide a
Windows 3.1 beta to Novell. Microsoft's refusal to do so was
another predatory effort to ... hamper Novell's ability to offer
a Windows 3.1-compatible release of DR DOS to the market.
Caldera Sues Microsoft
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/ca_sues_ms.html
Novell Sues Microsoft
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-12-15/microsoft-trust-lawsuit/51957158/1
In the fall of 1991, Microsoft announced to the market that DRDanS said:
DOS would not be compatible with the next release of Windows
known as Windows 3.1 .... The market perceived that it was
critical for an operating system to support Windows; therefore
Microsoft's statements that DR DOS could not do so substantially
undercut Novell's efforts to penetrate the DOS Market.
Microsoft reinforced this misleading impression of
incompatibility between DR DOS and Windows 3.1, when, beginning
in December, 1991, Microsoft released beta versions of Windows
3.1 containing code that generated error messages when Windows
3.1 ran on top of DR DOS rather than MS-DOS.
Microsoft created these error messages solely for the purpose of
creating the impression that DR DOS would be incompatible with
Windows in order to dissuade customers from purchasing DR DOS.
Caldera's lawsuit also states that Microsoft refused to provide a
Windows 3.1 beta to Novell. Microsoft's refusal to do so was
another predatory effort to ... hamper Novell's ability to offer
a Windows 3.1-compatible release of DR DOS to the market.
Caldera Sues Microsoft
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/ca_sues_ms.html
Novell Sues Microsoft
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-12-15/microsoft-trust-lawsuit/51957158/1
D
DanS
Give it up old man.....
Updating Windows was the topic....through hot patches,
security fixes, and SPs.
And that was exactly what you were trying to get across when
you posted the link about the HP/XP SP3 issue that blamed HP
instead of MS.
Here....."Scientific evidence with updates and without,
history of lawsuits against updates."
Your words.
In trying to defend your position, you change the second
mention of "updates" in that sentence to mean updating Windows
from 3.0, to 3.11, to 95, to 98, to Me, to XP, to Vista, to 7.
The goalposts are moving fast!!!!!
D
DanS
Aren't you proud of yourself.
Yes, I am in denial.....
I deny that I ever eluded to anything even close to saying
there has never been any problems with any Windows patch or
update.
If I am mistaken, show me my post.
(And don't bring up the HP/XP SP3 thing because that was a
case of me and others in here, laughing at you, because while
you claim you want intelligent debate, that post was anything
but, as it completely debunked your claim by itself. All one
had to do is actually read it.)
B
BillW50
In
Windows 3.1 is an update to Windows 3.0. Anybody with 20 years of
computer experience knows that. But maybe you lied about the 20 years of
experience? Because things past say about 10 years ago, you are totally
clueless about.
feels stupid and want to narrow this down to just HP and XP SP3. And I
only mentioned it as one example in this thread. But that isn't what I
started or continue talking about. It was all about Windows updates and
the problems it can cause for users, IT departments, corporations, etc.
denial. Here is the post that started it all. When KenW said to go ahead
and install it, as it can't hurt.
From: BillW50
Newsgroups: alt.windows7.general
Subject: Re: Confused about todays updates
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:06:27 -0600
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
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.
Yes so? You asked: "Lawsuits brought on MS about Windows Updates ?" AndDanS said:
Windows 3.1 is an update to Windows 3.0. Anybody with 20 years of
computer experience knows that. But maybe you lied about the 20 years of
experience? Because things past say about 10 years ago, you are totally
clueless about.
No this was about the 50 posts that were quoted above. It is you who
feels stupid and want to narrow this down to just HP and XP SP3. And I
only mentioned it as one example in this thread. But that isn't what I
started or continue talking about. It was all about Windows updates and
the problems it can cause for users, IT departments, corporations, etc.
No the goal posts were always about Windows updates. You are just in
denial. Here is the post that started it all. When KenW said to go ahead
and install it, as it can't hurt.
From: BillW50
Newsgroups: alt.windows7.general
Subject: Re: Confused about todays updates
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:06:27 -0600
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
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.
B
BillW50
In
Subject: Re: Confused about todays updates
From: DanS
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:05:09 -0600
haven't given one single reference whatsoever. Just nothing except your
opinion and that is it. So Dan, If you want some credibility, you need
to have some reliable references. ;-)
How so did they debunk my claim by itself? Anyway here is what you said:DanS said:
Subject: Re: Confused about todays updates
From: DanS
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 10:05:09 -0600
So I gave you plenty of references and you still complain. And you
haven't given one single reference whatsoever. Just nothing except your
opinion and that is it. So Dan, If you want some credibility, you need
to have some reliable references. ;-)
D
DanS
I think you need to learn the differnce between an *update*
and an *upgrade*.
B
Boscoe
Updates can cause major problems but it's plain bonkers not to update
security fixes. Microsoft have just had a huge party to celebrate the
demise of IE6 (huge security flaws) and admitted it was the worst piece
of software ever invented.
B
BillW50
In
has a 4GB SSD soldered on the motherboard and it is non-upgradeable. So
I was forced to stop updating on that machine. One year later still no
malware. So I experimented and had taken a handful of test computers and
stopped updating them as well. This all started 4 years ago. None of
them have had any problems at all.
Yes I hear that all of the time and I believed until one machine I haveBoscoe said:
has a 4GB SSD soldered on the motherboard and it is non-upgradeable. So
I was forced to stop updating on that machine. One year later still no
malware. So I experimented and had taken a handful of test computers and
stopped updating them as well. This all started 4 years ago. None of
them have had any problems at all.
Got a reference for this?
D
DanS
That post of mine is where you got the idea that I've said
that there's never been problems with Windows security patches
and updates ?
You must have the reading comprehension of 3rd grader.
I even said...."I didn't say he was lying".
If you think that every MS *update* should work perfectly
every time, for every user, and with every possible
configuration of the 100's of thousands, if not millions of
different possible hardware configurations....you're smoking
crack.
I'm sure you also believe the FDA says that there can be no
spider eggs in your jar of peanut butter, too.
Here's the FDA numbers for items to be rejected.....
Insect filth- Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100
grams
Rodent filth- Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams
Grit
Grit- Gritty taste and water insoluble inorganic residue is
more than 25 mg per 100 grams
So, if your peanut butter ony averages 29 insect fragments per
100 grams....your good to go.
(I just know you'll be asking for this....)
<http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformati
on/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm>
(Sorry to anyone else *still* reading this thread for ruining
some of your favorite foods.)
B
BillW50
In
Microsoft often rolled both upgrades and updates into one. Some you had
to pay for, some you didn't. Many updates to MS-DOS v6.xx were just this
way. And Windows 3.1 released about the same time had bug fixes as well
as upgrade features too. Windows 98SE was much the same way.
Microsoft was changing this a bit between Office 97 and 2000. While
functionally they are pretty close. And while Microsoft billed it as an
upgrade (they even changed major version numbers), many of us saw it as
a paid update for Office 97. I know I did. As Office 97 was fine for my
needs except for the bugs. And Office 2000 had the bug fixes for Office
97 and worked very well.
References
UPGRADE: The term upgrade refers to the replacement of a product with a
newer version of the same product. It is most often used in computing
and consumer electronics, generally meaning a replacement of hardware,
software or firmware with a newer or better version, in order to bring
the system up to date or to improve its characteristics. Contrast update
and replace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrade
Software Update: A patch is a piece of software designed to fix problems
with, or update a computer program or its supporting data. This includes
fixing security vulnerabilities and other bugs, and improving the
usability or performance. Though meant to fix problems, poorly designed
patches can sometimes introduce new problems (see software regressions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(computing)
I quite know the difference. Back before your time (about 20 years ago),DanS said:
Microsoft often rolled both upgrades and updates into one. Some you had
to pay for, some you didn't. Many updates to MS-DOS v6.xx were just this
way. And Windows 3.1 released about the same time had bug fixes as well
as upgrade features too. Windows 98SE was much the same way.
Microsoft was changing this a bit between Office 97 and 2000. While
functionally they are pretty close. And while Microsoft billed it as an
upgrade (they even changed major version numbers), many of us saw it as
a paid update for Office 97. I know I did. As Office 97 was fine for my
needs except for the bugs. And Office 2000 had the bug fixes for Office
97 and worked very well.
References
UPGRADE: The term upgrade refers to the replacement of a product with a
newer version of the same product. It is most often used in computing
and consumer electronics, generally meaning a replacement of hardware,
software or firmware with a newer or better version, in order to bring
the system up to date or to improve its characteristics. Contrast update
and replace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrade
Software Update: A patch is a piece of software designed to fix problems
with, or update a computer program or its supporting data. This includes
fixing security vulnerabilities and other bugs, and improving the
usability or performance. Though meant to fix problems, poorly designed
patches can sometimes introduce new problems (see software regressions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(computing)
B
BillW50
In
problems with it had nothing to do with Microsoft. When in fact SP3
problems did have a lot to do with Microsoft. And while Microsoft
admitted to no wrong doing (how convenient), they quickly fixed the
major bugs.
use references from very reliable sources instead.
for their decisions.
You are confused. I didn't even address that yet.DanS said:
I know, but you did defend XP SP3 (tooth and nail I might add) and any
problems with it had nothing to do with Microsoft. When in fact SP3
problems did have a lot to do with Microsoft. And while Microsoft
admitted to no wrong doing (how convenient), they quickly fixed the
major bugs.
I say something similar, but I am much kinder about it. As I generally
use references from very reliable sources instead.
Everything I have seen from the FDA, points to following the money trail
for their decisions.
I have no idea what this has to do with the price of rice in China?
B
BillW50
In Alias typed on :
at 25.2%.
They are used. This one for example hasn't been updated in four years.
7.7% of the world is still using IE6? Wow that is really high. And China
at 25.2%.