"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:23:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Beginning with "I did read it", you mentioned several issues (plural), and
then asked for "views on this" (singular). Pick one issue to start with.
It's busy here.


Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

--Vic


Since there are reports of this, then it is possible, and not always for
reasons that are any of MS' business. Hardware changes, for instance.
Therefore, WGA is broken.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:29:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

Since there are reports of this, then it is possible, and not always for
reasons that are any of MS' business. Hardware changes, for instance.
Therefore, WGA is broken.

Yes, I've heard of that. Not sure this is isolated to MB/CPU changes,
but it has raised complaints from some.

Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:29:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Do you feel that WGA will report a "false positive" when attempting to
validate your OS, deactivate or cripple you OS, thus requiring you to
call MS to resolve it?

Since there are reports of this, then it is possible, and not always for
reasons that are any of MS' business. Hardware changes, for instance.
Therefore, WGA is broken.

Yes, I've heard of that. Not sure this is isolated to MB/CPU changes,
but it has raised complaints from some.

Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic


I've seen it. Not on all computers, but on some. How about you?

Even before WGA, the auto update process was seriously flawed. Do you
remember the update that completely changed the way OE allowed access to
attachments. Of course, this was not made clear to users until they hit a
brick wall when trying to access attachments. When this happened at my home
office, I was enjoying myself in Puerto Rico, out of cell phone range. Our
local computer consultant was home sick with the flu. Our "rainmaker", a guy
whose enormous sales depend on attachments, was dead in the water for a day.

The MS newsgroups are periodically loaded with identical questions from
users whose machines have been somehow sabotaged by a "helpful" update. Even
the MS MVPs who answer users' question often recommend turning off auto
updates, opting instead for users to just be notified of an available
update, and waiting to see the effects they have on hapless people who
didn't follow their advice.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:51:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic


I've seen it. Not on all computers, but on some. How about you?

No, but my experience is limited to corporate PC's, and home PC's not
used for business.

Even before WGA, the auto update process was seriously flawed. Do you
remember the update that completely changed the way OE allowed access to
attachments. Of course, this was not made clear to users until they hit a
brick wall when trying to access attachments. When this happened at my home
office, I was enjoying myself in Puerto Rico, out of cell phone range. Our
local computer consultant was home sick with the flu. Our "rainmaker", a guy
whose enormous sales depend on attachments, was dead in the water for a day.

I can now see your concern, and it's a valid one. I don't use OE at
home, preferring Agent, and at work the "image" team always kept OE
either flawless, or quickly fixed. A small business using MS doesn't
have that infrastructure. Shame on MS.

The MS newsgroups are periodically loaded with identical questions from
users whose machines have been somehow sabotaged by a "helpful" update. Even
the MS MVPs who answer users' question often recommend turning off auto
updates, opting instead for users to just be notified of an available
update, and waiting to see the effects they have on hapless people who
didn't follow their advice.

An individual user would be well advised to get updates manually, and
ghost an image beforehand, so he could restore if the update caused
issues. Personally, after the major security updates with XP, I never
went back, since the updates have no relevance for me on a single
workstation, and only further bloat the OS.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

You also said this:
Harry, I expected this. It's pathetic, really. The article is about a
piece of the windows update software which is essentially spyware.

Beyond looking at hardware configs for validation purposes - which IMO
is questionable for various reasons unrelated to spying - do you think
MS is really "spying" in the sense of gathering information about you
that they aren't entitled to?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:51:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Can you address this bit you wrote?

If you allow windows update to freely do its thing, you WILL have
issues
eventually. It's not a matter of "if". It's "when".

Do you really believe this, or was it hyperbole?

--Vic


I've seen it. Not on all computers, but on some. How about you?

No, but my experience is limited to corporate PC's, and home PC's not
used for business.


Well, in corporations where the IT people are a step ahead of MS, these
things may not be as much of a problem.


Even before WGA, the auto update process was seriously flawed. Do you
remember the update that completely changed the way OE allowed access to
attachments. Of course, this was not made clear to users until they hit a
brick wall when trying to access attachments. When this happened at my
home
office, I was enjoying myself in Puerto Rico, out of cell phone range. Our
local computer consultant was home sick with the flu. Our "rainmaker", a
guy
whose enormous sales depend on attachments, was dead in the water for a
day.

I can now see your concern, and it's a valid one. I don't use OE at
home, preferring Agent, and at work the "image" team always kept OE
either flawless, or quickly fixed. A small business using MS doesn't
have that infrastructure. Shame on MS.

The MS newsgroups are periodically loaded with identical questions from
users whose machines have been somehow sabotaged by a "helpful" update.
Even
the MS MVPs who answer users' question often recommend turning off auto
updates, opting instead for users to just be notified of an available
update, and waiting to see the effects they have on hapless people who
didn't follow their advice.

An individual user would be well advised to get updates manually, and
ghost an image beforehand, so he could restore if the update caused
issues. Personally, after the major security updates with XP, I never
went back, since the updates have no relevance for me on a single
workstation, and only further bloat the OS.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

I'm just guessing, but I think that for every 1000 users, you might find 50
who know what ghosting in image means, and maybe 2 who'll actually do it.


You also said this:
Harry, I expected this. It's pathetic, really. The article is about a
piece of the windows update software which is essentially spyware.

Beyond looking at hardware configs for validation purposes - which IMO
is questionable for various reasons unrelated to spying - do you think
MS is really "spying" in the sense of gathering information about you
that they aren't entitled to?

--Vic


Not information about me, and I have no problem with software which needs to
know things about my computer in order to provide the correct patches.
However, I *do* have issues when one day the software doesn't do this, and
the next day it does, even when it's been explicitly told not to.
Fortunately, ZoneAlarm alerts me to any unauthorized outbound conversations,
but this isn't the case for many users, especially if they are using XP's
firewall, which does not monitor outbound nonsense.