Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Great Society = The Great Failure | ASA | |||
Isn't it great | General | |||
Great Canal and Great Lake trip site | Cruising | |||
A Great Day | ASA |