MS is really a worry : More

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Collector»NZ, Mar 21, 2005.

  1. Well following my earlier comment i have finished my new image build.

    One nice DVD including my base apps, my old one was way out of date
    being about a year old.

    The final score
    Downloaded
    58 updates a total of 88 MB via dial up!
    Now bear in mind that I started with a Win2kPro load, followed by the
    latest MS Cumulative Update and Security CD.

    Now the install files for Win2kPro are only 295MB (Of which a largish
    amount are languages you dont use) and the security/cumulative update
    provides another 260MB.

    I would probably have completely replaced my base install with updates
    etc by now.

    BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.
    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
    However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
     
    Collector»NZ, Mar 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Collector»NZ wrote:
    > I would probably have completely replaced my base install with updates
    > etc by now.
    > BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.


    well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >> I would probably have completely replaced my base install with updates
    >> etc by now.
    >> BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.


    > well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.


    actually, sorry, office was included in that too...

    but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Collector»NZ

    Axle Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >>> I would probably have completely replaced my base install with
    >>> updates etc by now.
    >>> BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.

    >
    >
    >> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.

    >
    >
    > actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >
    > but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.


    Thats updating all the applications though.
     
    Axle, Mar 21, 2005
    #4
  5. Collector»NZ

    Impossible Guest

    "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well following my earlier comment i have finished my new image
    > build.
    >
    > One nice DVD including my base apps, my old one was way out of date
    > being about a year old.
    >
    > The final score
    > Downloaded
    > 58 updates a total of 88 MB via dial up!
    > Now bear in mind that I started with a Win2kPro load, followed by
    > the latest MS Cumulative Update and Security CD.
    >
    > Now the install files for Win2kPro are only 295MB (Of which a
    > largish amount are languages you dont use) and the
    > security/cumulative update provides another 260MB.
    >
    > I would probably have completely replaced my base install with
    > updates etc by now.
    >
    > BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.
    > --


    Dial-up is the real problem. With a broadband connection, no one
    sweats these updates -- it's quick and convenient. Many of the big
    software makers are moving to this kind of system, and I think it's
    great.

    Not that I don't appreciate the pain that dial-up users go through.
    But face it, broadband is where it's at. Griping now about big
    downloads on dial-up is like griping in 1995 about software bloat on
    your 4 meg system. You've got a point either way, but really -- you
    need to get over it.
     
    Impossible, Mar 21, 2005
    #5
  6. Impossible said the following on 21/03/2005 5:57 p.m.:
    > "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Well following my earlier comment i have finished my new image
    >>build.
    >>
    >>One nice DVD including my base apps, my old one was way out of date
    >>being about a year old.
    >>
    >>The final score
    >>Downloaded
    >> 58 updates a total of 88 MB via dial up!
    >>Now bear in mind that I started with a Win2kPro load, followed by
    >>the latest MS Cumulative Update and Security CD.
    >>
    >>Now the install files for Win2kPro are only 295MB (Of which a
    >>largish amount are languages you dont use) and the
    >>security/cumulative update provides another 260MB.
    >>
    >>I would probably have completely replaced my base install with
    >>updates etc by now.
    >>
    >>BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.
    >>--

    >
    >
    > Dial-up is the real problem. With a broadband connection, no one
    > sweats these updates -- it's quick and convenient. Many of the big
    > software makers are moving to this kind of system, and I think it's
    > great.
    >
    > Not that I don't appreciate the pain that dial-up users go through.
    > But face it, broadband is where it's at. Griping now about big
    > downloads on dial-up is like griping in 1995 about software bloat on
    > your 4 meg system. You've got a point either way, but really -- you
    > need to get over it.
    >
    >

    Okay you have got the point, now tell me how I get broadband here at my
    Paraparaumu base! (and there are a number of other places with similar
    issues)
    No cable, too far and line quality too low for DSL, no Wireless or wifi,
    so I have to be like 50% of US internet users and use dial up.

    Telescums have no plans to improve lines or add a dslam near us since
    the area all around us has cable so the return would be too low. Oh the
    joys of a duopoly! Wireless have no plans to expand to here either for
    the same reasons.

    No wonder end lusers dont update and patch thier PCs.



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Collector»NZ, Mar 21, 2005
    #6
  7. Axle wrote:
    >>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.


    >> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.


    > Thats updating all the applications though.


    eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 21, 2005
    #7
  8. Collector»NZ wrote:
    > no Wireless or wifi,
    > so I have to be like 50% of US internet users and use dial up.


    ummm, do it yourself.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 21, 2005
    #8
  9. Collector»NZ

    Axle Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Axle wrote:
    >
    >>>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.

    >
    >
    >>> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >>> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.

    >
    >
    >> Thats updating all the applications though.

    >
    >
    > eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.


    Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller
     
    Axle, Mar 21, 2005
    #9
  10. Axle wrote:
    >>>>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.


    >>>> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >>>> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.


    >>> Thats updating all the applications though.


    >> eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.


    > Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller


    I didn't know what to un-install, they all had weird names, and I sure
    as hell wasn't going to google the ~1800 packages that were installed,
    hell, even if I had, I may have removed things that others depended
    on... and then I'd be fucked.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 21, 2005
    #10
  11. Collector»NZ

    Impossible Guest

    "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
    news:423e6a0e$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Impossible said the following on 21/03/2005 5:57 p.m.:
    >>
    >> Dial-up is the real problem. With a broadband connection, no one
    >> sweats these updates -- it's quick and convenient. Many of the big
    >> software makers are moving to this kind of system, and I think it's
    >> great.
    >>
    >> Not that I don't appreciate the pain that dial-up users go through.
    >> But face it, broadband is where it's at. Griping now about big
    >> downloads on dial-up is like griping in 1995 about software bloat
    >> on your 4 meg system. You've got a point either way, but really --
    >> you need to get over it.

    > Okay you have got the point, now tell me how I get broadband here at
    > my Paraparaumu base! (and there are a number of other places with
    > similar issues)
    > No cable, too far and line quality too low for DSL, no Wireless or
    > wifi, so I have to be like 50% of US internet users and use dial up.
    >
    > Telescums have no plans to improve lines or add a dslam near us
    > since the area all around us has cable so the return would be too
    > low. Oh the joys of a duopoly! Wireless have no plans to expand to
    > here either for the same reasons.
    >
    > No wonder end lusers dont update and patch thier PCs.
    >


    Agreed. Something about the current system for distributing broadband
    access clearly isn't working. I know this offends those who think "the
    market" solves everything. But there's got to be a better way.
     
    Impossible, Mar 22, 2005
    #11
  12. Collector»NZ

    Tim Guest

    Put in a wireless link and share costs with some one close by.





    "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
    news:423e6a0e$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    > Impossible said the following on 21/03/2005 5:57 p.m.:
    >> "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>Well following my earlier comment i have finished my new image build.
    >>>
    >>>One nice DVD including my base apps, my old one was way out of date being
    >>>about a year old.
    >>>
    >>>The final score
    >>>Downloaded
    >>> 58 updates a total of 88 MB via dial up!
    >>>Now bear in mind that I started with a Win2kPro load, followed by the
    >>>latest MS Cumulative Update and Security CD.
    >>>
    >>>Now the install files for Win2kPro are only 295MB (Of which a largish
    >>>amount are languages you dont use) and the security/cumulative update
    >>>provides another 260MB.
    >>>
    >>>I would probably have completely replaced my base install with updates
    >>>etc by now.
    >>>
    >>>BTW dont think XP is any different, every bit a bad.
    >>>--

    >>
    >>
    >> Dial-up is the real problem. With a broadband connection, no one sweats
    >> these updates -- it's quick and convenient. Many of the big software
    >> makers are moving to this kind of system, and I think it's great.
    >>
    >> Not that I don't appreciate the pain that dial-up users go through. But
    >> face it, broadband is where it's at. Griping now about big downloads on
    >> dial-up is like griping in 1995 about software bloat on your 4 meg
    >> system. You've got a point either way, but really -- you need to get over
    >> it.

    > Okay you have got the point, now tell me how I get broadband here at my
    > Paraparaumu base! (and there are a number of other places with similar
    > issues)
    > No cable, too far and line quality too low for DSL, no Wireless or wifi,
    > so I have to be like 50% of US internet users and use dial up.
    >
    > Telescums have no plans to improve lines or add a dslam near us since the
    > area all around us has cable so the return would be too low. Oh the joys
    > of a duopoly! Wireless have no plans to expand to here either for the same
    > reasons.
    >
    > No wonder end lusers dont update and patch thier PCs.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
     
    Tim, Mar 22, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <423e98b0$>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    >Axle wrote:
    >>>>>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.

    >
    >>>>> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >>>>> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.

    >
    >>>> Thats updating all the applications though.

    >
    >>> eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.

    >
    >> Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller

    >
    >I didn't know what to un-install, they all had weird names...


    8.3 names? It's a real mystery why Microsoft continues to use these, a
    decade after introducing long filename support in their OSes.

    I wonder if there is some fundamental Windows-internal reason for this...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 22, 2005
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.
    >>>>>>actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >>>>>>but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.
    >>>>>Thats updating all the applications though.
    >>>>eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.
    >>>Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller

    >>I didn't know what to un-install, they all had weird names...


    > 8.3 names? It's a real mystery why Microsoft continues to use these, a
    > decade after introducing long filename support in their OSes.


    ahhh, no, they were things like gcc2.6.??? or similar... I was meaning
    Linux, I have no idea on what I can remove.

    > I wonder if there is some fundamental Windows-internal reason for this...


    backwards compatibility I'd imagine.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 22, 2005
    #14
  15. Collector»NZ

    David Guest

    Tim wrote:
    > Put in a wireless link and share costs with some one close by.
    >
    >
    >


    Someone close by might not care, and be happy with dial-up.
    What difference do updates make to them?
    Also it is more important that machines on broadband connections get
    patched, because they are the ones that stuff up the internet for
    everyone else when they get infected.
     
    David, Mar 22, 2005
    #15
  16. Collector»NZ

    Tim Guest

    Ahhhh, I am suggesting how he can get a faster link if he wants one. Not the
    morality of running PC's without firewalls or security patches installed.












    "David" <> wrote in
    message news:0sN%d.11758$...
    > Tim wrote:
    >> Put in a wireless link and share costs with some one close by.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Someone close by might not care, and be happy with dial-up.
    > What difference do updates make to them?
    > Also it is more important that machines on broadband connections get
    > patched, because they are the ones that stuff up the internet for everyone
    > else when they get infected.
     
    Tim, Mar 22, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <423f97f5$>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    >...they were things like gcc2.6.??? or similar... I was meaning
    >Linux, I have no idea on what I can remove.


    If you use the "less" command on a .rpm file, it will display, nicely
    formatted, the explanatory text at the header of the package.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Mar 22, 2005
    #17
  18. Collector»NZ

    Rob J Guest

    In article <> in nz.comp on Tue,
    22 Mar 2005 15:40:11 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > In article <423e98b0$>,
    > "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Axle wrote:
    > >>>>>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.

    > >
    > >>>>> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    > >>>>> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.

    > >
    > >>>> Thats updating all the applications though.

    > >
    > >>> eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.

    > >
    > >> Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller

    > >
    > >I didn't know what to un-install, they all had weird names...

    >
    > 8.3 names? It's a real mystery why Microsoft continues to use these, a
    > decade after introducing long filename support in their OSes.


    Windows XP supports Dos based setup scripting. It is being phased out in
    Longhorn.
     
    Rob J, Mar 22, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    Rob J <> wrote:

    >In article <> in nz.comp on Tue,
    >22 Mar 2005 15:40:11 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    >central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >> In article <423e98b0$>,
    >> "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Axle wrote:
    >> >>>>>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.
    >> >
    >> >>>>> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    >> >>>>> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.
    >> >
    >> >>>> Thats updating all the applications though.
    >> >
    >> >>> eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.
    >> >
    >> >> Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller
    >> >
    >> >I didn't know what to un-install, they all had weird names...

    >>
    >> 8.3 names? It's a real mystery why Microsoft continues to use these, a
    >> decade after introducing long filename support in their OSes.

    >
    >Windows XP supports Dos based setup scripting. It is being phased out in
    >Longhorn.


    In what way does a DOS-style shell script impose 8.3 limitations on file
    names? I knew COMMAND.COM scripts are pathetically limited, but I
    thought they could deal with strings longer than 12 characters...
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Mar 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Collector»NZ

    Rob J Guest

    In article <> in nz.comp on Wed,
    23 Mar 2005 09:47:40 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > In article <>,
    > Rob J <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <> in nz.comp on Tue,
    > >22 Mar 2005 15:40:11 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > >central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > >> In article <423e98b0$>,
    > >> "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Axle wrote:
    > >> >>>>>> well, ~1GB for install, and ~300Mb of updates.
    > >> >
    > >> >>>>> actually, sorry, office was included in that too...
    > >> >>>>> but ummm, it was ~ the same for my last Xandros install.
    > >> >
    > >> >>>> Thats updating all the applications though.
    > >> >
    > >> >>> eh... doesnt matter, all I use is the OS and the office stuff.
    > >> >
    > >> >> Then you can uninstall the rest and your updates will be smaller
    > >> >
    > >> >I didn't know what to un-install, they all had weird names...
    > >>
    > >> 8.3 names? It's a real mystery why Microsoft continues to use these, a
    > >> decade after introducing long filename support in their OSes.

    > >
    > >Windows XP supports Dos based setup scripting. It is being phased out in
    > >Longhorn.

    >
    > In what way does a DOS-style shell script impose 8.3 limitations on file
    > names? I knew COMMAND.COM scripts are pathetically limited, but I
    > thought they could deal with strings longer than 12 characters...


    Dos has only an 8.3 view of filenames and always has.

    Windows XP supports a number of mechanisms for Dos based installation,
    including:

    - Dos based boot disk to command prompt then install off local harddrive
    - Dos based boot disk to install off CD rom drive using Dos drivers
    - Dos based boot disk to install over a network connection

    The distro includes a real mode command line installer, winnt.exe.

    At a guess it's part of the transitional arrangements between Windows
    98/ME Dos based installers which was the generation of operating systems
    prior to Windows XP for home users.

    Microsoft now promotes Windows PE as the installation environment, this
    runs in the protected mode of the CPU and has considerable advantages
    including accessing more than 1 MB of memory. With this in mind, MS has
    developed PE based scripting tools and is encouraging OEMs to transition
    to them. MS has announced that support for MS-DOS is being phased out
    completely in 2005.

    Longhorn pre-release editions are already using Windows PE to install. PE
    is a stripped down version of the Windows operating system and has many
    advantages, including access to core parts of the Windows API.
     
    Rob J, Mar 22, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Just me.

    Should I worry?

    Just me., Jun 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    518
    °Mike°
    Jun 20, 2004
  2. Peter Huebner
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    289
    ~misfit~
    Jul 6, 2007
  3. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: No more Linux security bragging: botnet discovery worry

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 1, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    385
  4. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: No more Linux security bragging: botnet discovery worry

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 1, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    761
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Oct 1, 2009
  5. Mara
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    839
Loading...

Share This Page