New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)

[BillW50]

In news:hnp9vg$mcl$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:52 -0400:
> If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say
> that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98.
>
> However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that:
>
> 1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98
> 2. Windows 7 is better than XP
>
> And I suspect that the number of people who accept 2. will grow over
> time, as the number of people who accepted 1. grew. I no longer use
> Windows 98. I did so for a LONG time after XP came out (years), but I
> no longer do, except on very old hardware on which there is no choice.
> And although, for hardware and software compatibility reasons, I am
> currently [still] using XP, I myself accept 2. as valid. And at some
> point I will stop using Windows XP.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I had Windows 7 Ultimate
RC on two machines for 10 months and I wasn't impressed at all. I also
have two unopened Windows 7 upgrade up on the shelf that I seriously
doubt that I will ever use them.

And both Vista and Windows 7 displays can be customized. Thus makes it
very difficult to write documentation. As the documentation screen shots
may not look like your screen. Thus makes life very difficult and wastes
people time. And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
the opposite. As they control the user. And it appears some people like
this. So it must be some sort of fetish thing I suppose. But it isn't
for me. Good thing I have 6 Windows XP machines. As that should hold me
into the next decade or two.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:131 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
> waste of time.

Then turn them off.

> OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
> before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
> the opposite. As they control the user.

Only if the user lets them...

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

 

[BillW50]

In
news:599cbc67-3e5b-4f2f-845c-1d4cb6492dbc@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com,
NT typed on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:150 -0800 (PST):
[...]
> I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
> concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
> poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
> changed that. It costs nothing to try, and if for some reason you
> still want to get windows you can buy it if and when you find linux
> isnt what you want. The days of linux being only for geeks are
> history.
>
> NT

You must be easy to please. As I find all flavors of Linux as a very
poor substitute to replace Windows with. I've used Linux for a number of
years. And even Ubuntu is just awful when it comes to playing multimedia
files. As Ubuntu needs three times the processor power just to play the
dang files compared to Windows on the same machine. And support for many
file types are just awful! I actually like my Palm OS far more than I
like Linux. And my favorite version of Linux is Xandros. At least it
actually works, unlike Ubuntu. But it still doesn't work as well as
Windows XP.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:131 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
>> waste of time.
>
> Then turn them off.
>
>> OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
>> before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
>> the opposite. As they control the user.
>
> Only if the user lets them...
>
> Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
> teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.
>
> It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.

So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things I
didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the wrong key.

Shades of that dreadful paper clip thing in Office.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

Same with the Mac, it comes with far too much stuff enabled on it. Its a
bloody walking advert, not a computer fit for work.

 

[BillW50]

In news:8305a1Fe1qU1@mid.individual.net,
Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010 100:25 GMT:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:131 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
>> waste of time.
>
> Then turn them off.

Can't turn them all off. And Windows 7 blocks my access to some
application configuration files. Both Vista and Windows 7 also blocks
stream recorders from downloading files. And blocks most systems from
recording the sound coming from the sound card. So what good is that?

And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

>> OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
>> before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does
>> just the opposite. As they control the user.
>
> Only if the user lets them...

The user doesn't have much of a choice. As if you force it, the OS
starts to break.

> Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
> teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are
forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too.
Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:hqeoa5$nk0$1@news.eternal-september.org,
BillW50 typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:525 -0500:
[...]
> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the
> Internet. The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

I am referring to KB971033. Lauren Weinstein's Blog write a great
article about this update which can be found here.

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html

Who controls and owns your Windows 7 OS? Microsoft does.

Sorry... but I don't have a fetish for allowing Microsoft to play games
with my OS. Maybe it is fine for the rest of you, but I am not
interested. I played those games back in the 80's with GeoWorks. And
those games cost me over $1000. And for what? Anybody using GeoWorks
today? I hope they used my money wisely and enjoyed cruising around in
their yachts.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:525 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> In news:8305a1Fe1qU1@mid.individual.net, Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010
> 100:25 GMT:
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:131 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big waste of
>>> time.
>>
>> Then turn them off.
>
> Can't turn them all off.

I don't seem to get any at all.

> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

I agree. I use it because I have to. I didn't say it was good. But it's
better than Vista.

>> Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
>> teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.
>
> If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are
> forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too.
> Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too.

Don't use Mac or Linux either! .-)


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

 

[BillW50]

Bob Eager wrote on 18 Apr 2010 12:48:13 GMT:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:525 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> In news:8305a1Fe1qU1@mid.individual.net, Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010
>> 100:25 GMT:
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:131 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>> And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big waste of
>>>> time.
>>> Then turn them off.
>> Can't turn them all off.
>
> I don't seem to get any at all.

Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just
visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work.
And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it
complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this
version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess.

But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything
worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an
application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for
updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over
and over again?

>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.
>
> I agree. I use it because I have to. I didn't say it was good. But it's
> better than Vista.

Well I don't think you will find one to disagree with you there. Even
those that dislikes Windows 7 will even admit this.

>>> Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
>>> teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.
>> If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are
>> forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too.
>> Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too.
>
> Don't use Mac or Linux either! .-)

Oh I do, just to mix things up a bit. But I admit that Windows XP does
100% of what I want to do. While Windows 7 does about 95%. And Linux
comes in at about 25%.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[Bernard Peek]

On 18/04/10 15:43, BillW50 wrote:


> Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just
> visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work.
> And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it
> complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this
> version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess.
>
> But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything
> worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an
> application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for
> updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over
> and over again?

UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend
disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised
because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you
should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too
aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that.


>
>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
>>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

That's been true since automated patching was invented.


--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

 

[Sjouke Burry]

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hnp9vg$mcl$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> Barry Watzman typed on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:52 -0400:
>> If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say
>> that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98.
>>
>> However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that:
>>
>> 1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98
>> 2. Windows 7 is better than XP
>>
>> And I suspect that the number of people who accept 2. will grow over
>> time, as the number of people who accepted 1. grew. I no longer use
>> Windows 98. I did so for a LONG time after XP came out (years), but I
>> no longer do, except on very old hardware on which there is no choice.
>> And although, for hardware and software compatibility reasons, I am
>> currently [still] using XP, I myself accept 2. as valid. And at some
>> point I will stop using Windows XP.
>
> Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I had Windows 7 Ultimate
> RC on two machines for 10 months and I wasn't impressed at all. I also
> have two unopened Windows 7 upgrade up on the shelf that I seriously
> doubt that I will ever use them.
>
> And both Vista and Windows 7 displays can be customized. Thus makes it
> very difficult to write documentation. As the documentation screen shots
> may not look like your screen. Thus makes life very difficult and wastes
> people time. And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
> waste of time.
>
> OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
> before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
> the opposite. As they control the user. And it appears some people like
> this. So it must be some sort of fetish thing I suppose. But it isn't
> for me. Good thing I have 6 Windows XP machines. As that should hold me
> into the next decade or two.
>
I have a fully up to date XP sp3, and I would like to hold onto that
as long as possible.
However, speed seems to decrease after each update nowadays.
How essential have those updates become?
Browser and mail Thunderbitd and firefox.
I am starting to think it would be smart to quit XP udate in the
near future.
Any opinions/suggestions?

 

[BillW50]

Bernard Peek wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:53:06 +0100:
> On 18/04/10 15:43, BillW50 wrote:
>
>
>> Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just
>> visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work.
>> And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it
>> complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this
>> version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess.
>>
>> But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything
>> worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an
>> application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for
>> updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over
>> and over again?
>
> UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend
> disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised
> because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you
> should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too
> aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that.

Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat v0.98
utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it always it was
okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is totally unnecessary.

AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It would
be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and selectable by
the user. There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but
BattStat was one that bugged me the most.

>>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
>>>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.
>
> That's been true since automated patching was invented.

I have some computers that I get almost every update. Although I also
have some computers that I never update. And I never had any virus on
any of them and I am connected to the Internet all of the time. So I am
having some serious concerns whether updates really makes a system more
secure or not.

The biggest threat are newer viruses. And newer viruses like newer
applications require the latest patches to work well. So sometimes at
least, unpatched older OS can actually be safer IMHO.

And no, I disagree that this has been true since auto patching. As so
far, Windows XP and Vista doesn't have this WAT piracy checking system
which can downgrade your OS at any time of Microsoft choosing. Where
Microsoft is the judge and jury. And where you are guilty until you can
prove otherwise. And if you can't to Microsoft's liking, you must pay a
fee to get your OS back again. And you are not out of the clear either.
As Microsoft could downgrade your OS over and over again to collect more
fees any time they feel fit.

Just look at the possibilities here. You could say something bad about
Microsoft and they could turn around and target your computer for a
downgrade. And charge you a ransom to get your OS up and running once
again. You know they will if they knew they could get away with it. And
knowing how Microsoft operates, I wouldn't hold it passed them.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[BillW50]

Sjouke Burry wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:518 +0200:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hnp9vg$mcl$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> Barry Watzman typed on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:52 -0400:
>>> If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say
>>> that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98.
>>>
>>> However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that:
>>>
>>> 1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98
>>> 2. Windows 7 is better than XP
>>>
>>> And I suspect that the number of people who accept 2. will grow over
>>> time, as the number of people who accepted 1. grew. I no longer use
>>> Windows 98. I did so for a LONG time after XP came out (years), but I
>>> no longer do, except on very old hardware on which there is no choice.
>>> And although, for hardware and software compatibility reasons, I am
>>> currently [still] using XP, I myself accept 2. as valid. And at some
>>> point I will stop using Windows XP.
>>
>> Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I had Windows 7
>> Ultimate RC on two machines for 10 months and I wasn't impressed at
>> all. I also have two unopened Windows 7 upgrade up on the shelf that I
>> seriously doubt that I will ever use them.
>>
>> And both Vista and Windows 7 displays can be customized. Thus makes it
>> very difficult to write documentation. As the documentation screen
>> shots may not look like your screen. Thus makes life very difficult
>> and wastes people time. And clicking on all of those safety prompts
>> are also a big waste of time.
>>
>> OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
>> before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
>> the opposite. As they control the user. And it appears some people
>> like this. So it must be some sort of fetish thing I suppose. But it
>> isn't for me. Good thing I have 6 Windows XP machines. As that should
>> hold me into the next decade or two.
>>
> I have a fully up to date XP sp3, and I would like to hold onto that
> as long as possible.
> However, speed seems to decrease after each update nowadays.
> How essential have those updates become?
> Browser and mail Thunderbitd and firefox.
> I am starting to think it would be smart to quit XP udate in the
> near future.
> Any opinions/suggestions?

Yes! I have some systems with updates and some without. And the ones
without are not getting infected with viruses anyway, so what's the point?

Some updates adds features or fixes bugs. Although if the feature(s)
doesn't interest you, I don't see the point. And bug fixes are only
useful if they fix your problem you are having. Otherwise they don't
have anything to offer you. And they can cause a new problem that you
never had before.

I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that ain't
broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more and more
will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a good thing to
blindly always do.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[Barry Watzman]

The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that
will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time you
do certain things within them. Even if you are not even connected to
the internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC on a
program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's not
something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's not easy
or user friendly.


Bernard Peek wrote:
>
> UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend
> disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised
> because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you
> should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too
> aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that.
>

 

[Barry Watzman]

See my previous post. It is possible to configure UAC on a
program-by-program basis, but it's not user friendly. A web search will
find instructions for doing so. Be prepared to do a lot of things manually.


BillW50 wrote:
>
> AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It would
> be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and selectable by
> the user. There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but
> BattStat was one that bugged me the most.
>

 

[Barry Watzman]

When the problem is a "security hole", the "brokenness" may not be obvious.

BillW50 wrote:
>
> I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that ain't
> broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more and more
> will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a good thing to
> blindly always do.
>

 

[Bernard Peek]

On 18/04/10 17:03, BillW50 wrote:


>> UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend
>> disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are
>> compromised because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC
>> under W7 you should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a
>> little too aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that.
>
> Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat v0.98
> utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it always it was
> okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is totally unnecessary.

Well yess. You really shouldn't be using programs that trigger UAC.

>
> AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It would
> be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and selectable by
> the user.

That wouldn't be very nice for the rest of us that have to cope with
spam sent by compromised systems.


There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but
> BattStat was one that bugged me the most.
>
>>>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
>>>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the
>>>>> Internet.
>>>>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.
>>
>> That's been true since automated patching was invented.
>
> I have some computers that I get almost every update. Although I also
> have some computers that I never update. And I never had any virus on
> any of them and I am connected to the Internet all of the time. So I am
> having some serious concerns whether updates really makes a system more
> secure or not.

In the Windows world it's possible to check whether a computer has been
properly patched and deny it access to the network if it fails the test.
Unfortunately any ISP who tried to do that would go out of business.

>
> The biggest threat are newer viruses. And newer viruses like newer
> applications require the latest patches to work well. So sometimes at
> least, unpatched older OS can actually be safer IMHO.

You've got that backwards. Viruses are often created by
reverse-engineering the latest patches, but they then only affect
unpatched systems. That's why there's a danger period starting about two
days after a new patch is released. That's why running unpatched systems
on the Internet is irresponsible and if I was emperor of the universe it
wouldn't be permitted.

>
> And no, I disagree that this has been true since auto patching. As so
> far, Windows XP and Vista doesn't have this WAT piracy checking system
> which can downgrade your OS at any time of Microsoft choosing.

Microsoft has made that patch optional but there is nothing stopping
them from dropping that restriction at any time they choose.

> Where
> Microsoft is the judge and jury. And where you are guilty until you can
> prove otherwise. And if you can't to Microsoft's liking, you must pay a
> fee to get your OS back again. And you are not out of the clear either.
> As Microsoft could downgrade your OS over and over again to collect more
> fees any time they feel fit.

This is absolutely true. And has been true since automatic patching was
invented.

>
> Just look at the possibilities here. You could say something bad about
> Microsoft and they could turn around and target your computer for a
> downgrade. And charge you a ransom to get your OS up and running once
> again. You know they will if they knew they could get away with it. And
> knowing how Microsoft operates, I wouldn't hold it passed them.
>

They have had the capability to do that for years but have never used
it. The same is true of the Mac and for those Linux users that can't
rebuild the kernel from source.


--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

 

[Bernard Peek]

On 18/04/10 171, Barry Watzman wrote:
> The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that
> will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time you
> do certain things within them. Even if you are not even connected to the
> internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC on a
> program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's not
> something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's not easy
> or user friendly.

Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the
data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other
unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies like
that.


--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

 

[AJL]

BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options.

In Vista I use a free program called TweakUAC which says it allows UAC
to run but in "quiet mode". Having never gotten a virus before or
after installation I can't say how effective it is in quiet mode, but
at least it never bugs me much anymore...

 

[BillW50]

In news:hqfc83$f1u$3@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 123:06 -0400:
> See my previous post. It is possible to configure UAC on a
> program-by-program basis, but it's not user friendly. A web search
> will find instructions for doing so. Be prepared to do a lot of
> things manually.

Okay. I filed it away in my brain cells in case I ever need it in the
future and it is good to know that this can be done. Of course, I better
make a backup of this on my hard drive just in case those brain cells
start to misbehave.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:hqfcai$f1u$4@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 124:25 -0400:
> When the problem is a "security hole", the "brokenness" may not be
> obvious.
> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>> I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that
>> ain't broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more
>> and more will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a
>> good thing to blindly always do.

Yes I admit on paper it looks good to update all of the time. Although
in practice, it looks far better avoiding updates.

I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from Microsoft
code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all Microsoft code.
OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then Microsoft and IBM parted
company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2
v3 code stayed with Microsoft. And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into
Microsoft's Windows NT.

IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They
really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code. And every OS/2
update that IBM put out was called fixpacs. And every fixpac just made
things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the
Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess!

I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of
fixpacs that didn't work right. I hear tell that IBM did finally got it
right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too. But IBM had lost a
majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something else
that worked. Usually this was towards Windows, IBM's competitor.

Since day one of personal computers, I believed in having more than one
computer. This allows for many things. As no fear of one computer
failing is one big plus right there. Plus you are free to experiment on
a spare that you would never do with a single computer system.

And years after that OS/2 ordeal, Microsoft updates started to have
their own problems too. As I remember Explorer breaking on some of my
systems with every other update. And the next update without any input
from me would fix it once again. It just seemed to be a normal part of
keeping Windows up-to-date. Thank goodness for spares around that I
didn't update to get my work done in between.

Since some of my spares I stopped accepting any updates, all is fine
with them so far for the past number of years. So I am highly
considering reinstalling Windows XP SP2 without any other updates just
to see what happens. Heck I haven't ran the original Windows XP release
in so long, I might even experiment there as well.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2