"It crashed despite the promise from Microsoft that it would increase stability"
That box that says "trust content from Microsoft" - you didn't tick it, did you? :-)
|
>>That box that says "trust content from Microsoft" - you didn't tick it, did you? :-)>>
Your cynicism is completely misplaced and unwarranted.
This particular update - I downloaded it without drama a few days ago, plus two or three other critical updates - relates to Internet Explorer, which incorporates Outlook Express.
Outlook has nothing to do with Internet Explorer and is normally bundled with Office.
Full details of 867801 and the other recent updates can be found in full at:
www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/200407_window...x
|
Your cynicism is completely misplaced and unwarranted.
MS updates are notorious in the industry for breaking things. If you got away with it, bully for you, but most people have experience of an update causing problems. It's one reason why people don't apply updates, but it's inevitable when you think about how many different configurations of the Windows registry there are out there: as many as there are computers running Windows. Just wait for XP SP2--that should be really exciting.
|
MS updates are notorious in the industry for breaking things. If you got away with it, bully for you, but most people have experience of an update causing problems
stuff and nonsense.
you mean "notorious in the anti-ms-gates industry".
we know very well that you are anti-microsoft and have a go at them at every opportunity on this forum, for some reason or other. i am not anti or pro anyone, i am just happy with the results i get with microsoft.
so bully for me and 6 other computers i regularly apply updates to - running variously on win98, me, and xp.
|
you mean "notorious in the anti-ms-gates industry".
No I don't. Why do you think Microsoft introduced registry rollbacks with Windows ME? Because Microsoft knows that installing new software, including updates, can be a problem. But the advantage of the registry system is backwards compatibility; neither Linux nor Mac OSX are anything like as good as Windows at backwards compatibility. That's a bit of a bind MS finds itself in, but my guess is that in the long run backwards compatibility will be ditched in favour of security and reliability.
we know very well that you are anti-microsoft
Not at all. Why would anyone be against a company? I couldn't care less about Microsoft; I don't have any MS shares, so why should I? Being against (or for) a company is just stupid. I happen to think that Windows has some serious design flaws and I happen to think that MS gets away with it because of its monopoly. I'm certainly not alone in thinking that, but if MS can resolve those issues then great, I'll buy Longhorn. In fact I still have Windows XP on a separate partition on this computer. I find it quite reliable when I use it--for iTunes and Palm software primarily, as well as some occasional games--but I still make a manual restore point each time I update (yes I know XP should do this automatically), just in case. Once bitten and all that.
|
|
|
|
>>.."If you got away with it, bully for you, but most people have experience of an update causing problems. It's one reason why people don't apply updates.."
I've been using computers since 1980 and been through the usual 3x, 95, 98, 98SE and XP Pro routine - I've never, ever had problems after installing updates, patches etc and must have undertaken them thousands of times. Anyone who doesn't install updates is taking a backward step.
I agree that Microsoft, in view of its massive resources, could perhaps at last come up with an OS that didn't require quite as much attention but, to be perfectly honest, I've been using XP Pro since last October and it's proved easily the most stable, reliable OS to date.
I've never had a blue screen, updates are installed smoothly and on only one occasion have I had to use System Restore - that was a result of a mistake by me, not XP Pro.
Certainly there is no case for you to argue that "..If you got away with it, bully for you.." I don't get away with anything, I just do things correctly (at least to the best of my ability).
Many of the problems people "suffer" using their computers is because, quite simply, they fail to do set it up properly or, if they download and install utilities such as Ad-aware6, Search and Destroy, SpywareBlaster, AVG etc don't read the Help section first and configure it properly before use.
In the case mentioned above the update was for Internet Explorer and Outlook was mistaken for Outlook Express. You can't criticise Microsoft for that error.
For some reason the British seem to delight in knocking anything that is successful whilst, at the same time, encouraging those struggling to make the top.
But woe betide them once they make the top - that's when the knocking begins.
|
For some reason the British seem to delight in knocking anything that is successful whilst, at the same time, encouraging those struggling to make the top. But woe betide them once they make the top - that's when the knocking begins.
Like, say, Rover?
;-)
|
Can we try and keep the banter and sniping to the general discussion threads and keep the I Have A Question threads as factual as possible please?
I know, I'm as guilty as the next man. Er, person. Sorry NW.
No Dosh - Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
> >> Like, say, Rover?
What would Rover give to have 95% of the global car market?
I agree with most of what you say Stuartli, but you must be unusually fastidious and incurious about new software. I also note you missed WinME--that's what turned me away, but not until it lost me business. I too have been using computers since about 1980 by the way, going through Tandy, BBC Micro, Apple II, and on into Wintel.
|
>>I also note you missed WinME-->>
I didn't miss it in the sense you mean, there was no obvious reason or perceived benefits to upgrade at the time.
|
>>I also note you missed WinME-->> I didn't miss it in the sense you mean...
I haven't a clue what you mean by that. You're right, 98SE was more than adequate at the time if you had it--ME was more or less 98SE with a few added frills anyway. Why are you so touchy?
|
>>Why are you so touchy?>>
I'm not touchy in the slightest..:-)
I merely meant that I didn't update to Windows ME just because it was available and that 98SE was perfectly adequate for my requirements.
You did note I'd missed WinME....:-) The same actually applied to Windows 2000 as I used it on a friend's system and wasn't all that bothered about getting it.
|
On the whole, patching works fine. However, when it does fall over, it can fail in a horrible way. I've seen a _lot_ of Windows 2000 Pro PCs fall over when applying SP3 from SP1. And the fix for that (it killed netlogon amongst other things) was less than easy and all but impossible if you didn't have other access to SP1/SP3 files. So if that way your only PC it would have meant a trip to a PC supplier or digging out a rebuild disk.
That said, all credit to MS who are addressing the problems they come across.
Patches are a bit like a surgeon thoroghly washing their hands and working in a sterile environment. Yep, you might get away with it if it wasn't completely clean but the consequences for not spending a little time and effort can be nasty.
SP2 for XP, out hopefully later this month will make the patching process quicker and simplier.
--
Lee
MINI adventure in progress
|
>>SP2 for XP, out hopefully later this month will make the patching process quicker and simplier.>>
Hopefully yes, but with the number of times that SP2's official release has been put back this year, I think I might just wait a little while to discover what problems others may initially experience...:-)
|
but with the number of times that SP2's official release has been put back this year>>
Read this:
zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5297645.html?tag=adnews
If you have dialup, may be better to order SP2 on CD from Microsoft when its available:
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp2/...x
|
|
|
|
|
|
