[peterblaise]

.

Peter Blaise responds: I also recommend Avast for those who no longer want to pay for Antivirus, finding it taking less overhead than free AVG, BUT Avast recently allowed a Trojan into 2 customer's PCs, costing waay more than Norton subscriptions would have. They had Dell's "come's with" McAfee, which was a horror to figure out how to manage and confirm if any part of it was actually a working antivirus component, and if it ever working or upgradeable in any way, aside from incessant, interruptive, abstruse and effectively meaningless popups ALL THE FRIKKIN' TIME. We can't win, can we?

It's all the fault of the power plugs - without 'em, there'd be no computer problems! ;-)

.

[coastie65]

Hi Peter, You won't find too many fans of either Norton ot McAfee around this forum. Just had one last night and apparantly that Koobface thing slipped past Avast! in his computer. From late afternoon until I shut down last night, I think we had four calls on that thing. The funny thing is, I went to a site that checks your security, and tries to slip in a worm and such. When I tried to download it, the download was shut down, not by my security apps, but SP2 according to the message. I'm thinking it was a combination of the Malicious Software removal too and the DEP. I was surprised by that turn of events though. coastie

[peterblaise]

..

Peter Blaise responds: Actually, after setting Avast default protection levels to HIGH rather than their defaults of lower-than-high, we feel better protected against viruses.

However, in the meantime, Microsoft updated their printer driver and now the printer doesn't work. Argh! I think of Microsoft updates as VIRUSES - don't you? They certainly behave that way. More than one customer has had to have me rebuild their PC after trying to allow Microsoft to inflict XP SP3 on them unawares. Geesh!

Norton and Microsoft are just plain stoopid when it comes to supposedly "smart" upgrades, updates, and patches that trample all over an otherwise working PC and KILL IT for good!

Yes, it's perpetual employment for techies, but I'd rather be doing something creative and productive to enhance my customer's lives, not just relieve their artificially induced pain, rather than just remedial cleanups. I feel like I'm still in my high-school part-time job at the local A&P - "cleanup the spill on isle 3, please". That's all I seem to do as a computer support person - cleanups after Microsoft and Norton spills ...

.

[coastie65]

Hi, I have it set for "Notification Only" therefore I can pick and choose my updates. Thus SP3 sits in my tray as yet uninstalled. I can't say as i've had any problems from Microsoft's updates, but I don't get everything they they put out either. Hardware driver updates, I usually get from the Hardware manufacturer. I have been having a go round with trying to reinstall my HP All-in-one printer stuff. their "Support" staff was a joke. They didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know and had tried. When I got the survey from them on my experience, I let them know about it too. Anyway, as far as Microsoft is concerned, I pick the stuff to install, and I NEVER run any Beta stuff from them. coastie

[rgreen4]

First, you asked about an example of when you referred to yourself in the third party:

peterblaise said:

..

Peter Blaise responds: Actually,...

That's third party since your name is on the post.

Next, I have never had a Microsoft update "break" or upset my two XP Pro, one XP Home or three Vista installations (only 5 machines though). All are set to notify and then I select which ones to download. I did have a problem with an HP Nvidia driver update to my HP Media Center machine. I suspect that it was an XP driver rather than the Vista driver as the machine was delivered with XP MCE (Vista light as I like to call it to Coastie's chagrin). SP3 is also sitting in my notification boxes on all my XP machines. I will probably install it within the next week or so, but not until I update my clone backups.

If you have the updates set to notify but not download until you take action, simply clicking on the update title line with give you a brief description. The KB reference is there if you want the full text of the knowledge base article (the KB number is the article reference).

It would be helpful in these news articles if they were to use the KB number rather than the MS08-xx number. The KB number is what shows up in the list of installed updates.

[peterblaise]

.

Peter Blaise says: Oh, I see. I put my name lead-in before my writing because I have no accurate anticipation of how these threads will look and arrive at other people's eyeballs via the web or email or archives, and I hate it when I see a whole lot of blah-blah-blah and no name immediately on it, either waay to high above or waay too far below, or no name at all. So, I put my name at the lead-in, and often sign off below, too. "Third person" - I see what you mean. This is typical list-serve/chat-room speak elsewhere. Each group develops habits, I'm new here.

Regarding pre-downloading everything Microsoft thinks is appropriate, then checking off what you want: how is the end user supposed to know what matters, and what will crash? I'm glad to see you all at least preview and select a limited subset by your own criteria, hence the headline:

"Windows Users Shrug Off Patches"

You don't take 'em all for a reason, and me too. Sadly, my customers don't know until it's too late not to take the last one that put them over the edge into failure and data loss, requiring rebuild, replacement, and so on. What a waste.

And, since it WAS working just fine before Microsoft patches, why not just cancel ALL Microsoft patches and stay stable? THAT's what we are doing now. If it ain't broke, why patch it?

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise

[rgreen4]

Well, I have three Vista machines and three XP machines (one a dual boot), and every on has every update released to date, except the XP SP3 update. I have not experienced any instance of an upgrade degrading the OS. But, then maybe, I just lucky. I review the updates to see size. Sometimes, when a particular one has a reputation of causing problems, I wll make sure I have updated my clones before installing the update, but I invariably install them.

[peterblaise]

.

Earlier: "... I review the updates to see size. Sometimes, when a particular one has a reputation of causing problems, I will make sure I have updated my clones before installing the update ... but I invariably install them (... except the XP SP3 update ...)"

Peter Blaise responds: Exactly - technical computer users such as ourselves might come up with personal criteria as to why we do not trust Microsoft's update patches. I presume that lack of trust is based on negative experience, or observing other's negative testimony, even stories in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and The Washington Post, and so on, regarding Microsoft.

But, what's a typical, non-technical computer user to do? Basically, they just want to USE their computer for the reasons for which they bought it. They do NOT want to spend their time maintaining it, nor do they want to spend their time LEARNING how to maintain it, let alone learning advanced skepticism, such as shown in the earlier comments above, checking to see which Microsoft patches to avoid, checking for size, checking for rumors, and checking to avoid entire levels of patches, such as XP SP3, as more than one of my customers should have done, but didn't know.

The point is that nothing in our non-computing experience preparers us for this challenge.

As drivers of our cars, for instance, we just expect them to work. We expect them to be serviceable by some local service station, and we expect to have an accessible Plan B when our car is unavailable (rent-a-car, bus, even walking!).

Sadly, our computers become (a) customized and (b) personalized almost immediately upon first use. (But, that is their purpose in life!)

Then, nothing about our own computer corresponds to any other "Plan B" computer. Servicers are wracking their brains to figure out what we have done and where our data is - different from the previous person, different from the next person.

Plan B is not helpful (rental, Kinkos, even the local library) because Plan B has no customization nor personalization ... unless we make our own Plan B backup computer that mirrors our just-about-to-crash computer, but lagging behind by ... what? A day or more between them, so if one crashes, we can copy the good one over the bad one and pick up where we left off? Is THAT what computer users must spend their time doing, instead of actually being productive?

Who buys two identical computers and mirrors them with a day gap in between?!? We NEVER had to do this with anything else in our lives. This is ludicrous. Microsoft only makes it worse, not better. They are worthless. Worse, they are damaging. And Symantec is no better with their inability to install an upgrade OVER previous editions. No. Instead, someone must arduously, manually remove previous editions first. The new edition is not "smart" enough to do it for you during installation of the new edition. Argh!

Thank you, everyone in this thread. You are confirming the horrible mess left after permitting convicted felons (for monopoly practices) like Microsoft and Intel to stay in power as viable, behemoth, industry-dominating companies running the computer industry into their pockets, and into the ground in the process, and the citizen-customer be damned. Both companies should have been broken up and sold as multiple separated divisions, and their chief officers should have been jailed as other convicted felons are.

Oh, did I wander from the main topic of "Windows Users Shrug Off Patches"? Did I? Did I really? I think, after all, they are one and the same. What Bush's (and Clinton's) judicial refused to do, end users are now doing on their own, eventually, apparently. Long die Microsoft.

We want our computers back. HELP!

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaise.com/

.

[rgreen4]

You have several misstatements:

peterblaise said:

.

Who buys two identical computers and mirrors them with a day gap in between?!?

No one. I clone the Hard Drive. An 80GB hard drive is less than $50 in most online stores. Makes it real easy to clone just the OS and applications.

peterblaise said:

.


Thank you, everyone in this thread. You are confirming the horrible mess left after permitting convicted felons (for monopoly practices) like Microsoft and Intel to stay in power as viable, behemoth, industry-dominating companies running the computer industry into their pockets, and into the ground in the process, and the citizen-customer be damned.

This shows your bias and very easily could be considered slander. Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolist practices in the past in CIVIL court. In order to be classed as a felon, they have to be convicted in criminal court. That spells the end of a corporation as seen with Arthur Andersen & Co. I don't know where you get your information on Intel, but both Intel and AMD would be surprised to hear that Intel has such a dominant position that they can dictate the direction of the entire computing industry.

Yes, the computing industry has certainly been run into the ground. We have never had such a diversity of personal computers available to us any time in the past, nor have we had as diverse a choice of operating systems available to us, nor as diverse a choice of applications. The fact that Intel sells more CPU chips than AMD currently is not a permanent condition as evidenced as the situation just a few years ago before the introduction of the C2D when industry analysts were wondering if Intel's best day were over.

We are in a free market society. If you don't like Intel, fine, buy a machine with an AMD processor. There are plenty to choose from and you will save a few dollars to boot. If you don't like Windows, fine, you can buy a Mac, but it comes with an Intel processor, so you are stuck with the decision of which variant of Linux to use. You can even order a manufactured machine with AMD and Linux if you want, you may have to search for one. If you don't like Microsoft applications, fine, you can use some open source alternatives that are touted on the forums.

You will find yourself lonely out there as over 90% of personal computer users choose Windows, as for their uses it's easier to use and it takes less effort to set it up, download and install files and use than is the Linux alternatives which has about a 2% market share. Then you have Mac with OS/X that occupies about 6%, and in the viewpoint of their faithful has both superior hardware and software.

The market just doesn't agree. And that is the reason Microsoft Windows has a 90% market share. It also goes back to the addage, invent a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. If someone came out with a more functional OS that is easier to use (sure lets out Linux) then they will take the market away from Microsoft. Apple is the only one poised to with the business plan to do it, but they obviously don't want to do it. They would rather be a hardware supplier than a software or operating system supplier.

[peterblaise]

.

Peter Blaise responds:

Thanks, rgreen4, you and others here make the lead-in points quite nicely:

- Microsoft Operating Systems not ready for sale to the consumer,

- Microsoft patches are not ready for sale to the consumer,

I find historical cause and effect here, namely:

- Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, bearing our the legal adage that monopolies are bad for innovation, customer service, and the US citizen in general.

Capital"F" Felon or small "f" felon is a distinction without a difference, the resolution to which is not germane to this discussion. At least we agree that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. I bring that to bear on the reason "Windows Users Shrug Off Patches" - because we don't trust Microsoft.

The fact that you don't know of Intel's conviction is a byproduct of their decision to settle out of court and avoid the negative publicity and costs that Microsoft went through. Intel was apparently quite successful in hiding their conviction for their monopolist lack of innovation, poor customer service, and general sins against the US citizen. Look it up, the resolution of which is also not germane to this discussion, but relates in reference only.

Now, try to buy a computer from the any one of the top computer vendors and try to get one without Microsoft or Intel built in, already paid for in bulk by the vendor. Can you spell M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y ? Can you SMELL the ongoing monopoly?

Ahh, remember Osborne and Hyperion and Unisys and NEC and ... ? Oh, yeah, right, there's choices we have today. Heck, we can't even get choices WITHIN the Microsoft monopoly: try to buy Microsoft Windows XP in a new computer ... WITHOUT also already paying for Microsoft Windows Vista. Suddenly your "90% choice" looks like a "90% non-choice" = monopoly still.

Look, admit it folks, most of the answers here saying "I know how to work around the Microsoft patch crap" are answers from TECHIES, not from the end user consumer citizen. The end user consumer citizen is getting caught in the Microsoft patch crap, and are learning NOT to master them, but to avoid them altogether. Hence: "Windows Users Shrug Off Patches".

I concur, and offered my experiences, and some speculation on background reasons.

So, anyone else?

Do you agree that "Windows Users Shrug Off Patches" or not?

Do you have experience with "Windows Users Shrugging Off Patches" or not?

Do you have any speculation as to the cause or remedy to "Windows Users Shrugging Off Patches" or not?

Thanks - great provocative discussion!

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
Independent Computer Headache Relief since 1969
http://www.peterblaise.com/

PS - Apple, geesh! Let's talk Xerox Parc ...

.

[Adama]

Hello Peter,

This thread is for people who did not, or are not, using the Windows patches. It's all about wanting to know who installed then and who didn't, and if they had any problems while doing so.

You're offering harsh ciritcisms about Microsoft and you're entitled to your opinion. However, if you want to criticize Microsoft, then you could start your own thread about it.

Also, here's no need for the flaming tone in your recent posts to RGreen. He's a well liked and respected member and Moderator of this Community, and from my POV, deserves to be treated as such.

[rgreen4]

Osborne - a case study on how not to run a computer business. Their machine which sold for, as best I can remember, since it was 20 years ago was almost 30 years ago, predating the original IBM PC, $1,800 actually cost them something over $2,000 to produce. It was Z80 based, ran CP/M OS and as such was limited to 64K of memory. Adam Osborne did teach the computer industry a valuable lesson, painful to his company when he announced a bold new replacement for the Osborne 1 many months before the product could be released.

Naturally, potential customers decided to hold off buying until the new product hit the market, drying up revenue just when it was needed. Bankruptcy followed.

Computer companies today of course announce the new products after the first shipment leaves on it's way to the distributer.

As to ordering a PC from a major manufacturer without Intel, it's done frequently every day. For almost every model HP offers with Intel in the consumer line, there is a similar model with the AMD CPU. As for ordering one of those with Linux, I don't know, as I have never tried. Of course, I don't want one either, having tried Ubuntu and spent more time trying to get the wireless on my lapto to work than it took to build my new desktop, install Vista, do the updates, install the apps and go to work. Never did get the wireless to work, so I went back to XP. Would have used Vista, but with the weak integrated video, the display was limited to 640x480. After all the laptop is more than two years older than Vista.

But the 31 flavors, er, distros of Linux are available for those who want it. Which at last report was about 2% of the computing population. Which may explain why it's so hard to find it pre-installed on a machine. One can lament for the old days, when IBM machines were shipped without any OS, due to a court order on a monopoly issue. (You didn't mention them, but then that was in the mainframe business also).

Of course most manufacturers discovered long ago that the consumer likes to take his brand new computer out of the box and hook it up, turn it on and have it start. Something that won't happen without an OS installed. Granted a clean install would solve most of the problems people encounter on their machines from the bloatware. But, that another issue.

Ah, yes, Unisys. The mainframe computer industry imitation of the PennCentral railroad. Take to moderately large inefficient companies, merge them together and form one larger inefficient company. Another case study in how not to manage. But, we were discussing PC's, how did mainframe computer manufactures come into the discussion?