Re: What is M$oft up to with security updates ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Patrick FitzGerald, Aug 11, 2003.

  1. Perhaps I have not made myself clear.

    What I am wondering is why micro$oft should nag me to install the
    same numbered patch everyday this month.

    In each case the Installation was successful

    Beats me


    Patrick
    Patrick FitzGerald, Aug 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Patrick FitzGerald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Perhaps I have not made myself clear.
    >
    > What I am wondering is why micro$oft should nag me to install the
    > same numbered patch everyday this month.
    >
    > In each case the Installation was successful
    >
    > Beats me
    >


    It means that the installation was not successful, even if the tiny brain of
    the installer program thinks it is. You could reinstall DirectX and try
    again, or kill two birds with one stone and update to the latest version of
    DirectX (If you haven't already).

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Patrick FitzGerald allegedly said:

    > What diaster wlil there be if they ever gret their way with their evil
    > Palladium plan designed to take away our control of or own computers


    They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.

    You authorised Microsoft to make updates to your security and digitla rights
    management without any further consent required from you.

    Linux......It's the way to escape from the MS operating system chain-gang.
    Jeremy Bentham, Aug 11, 2003
    #3
  4. On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:20:25 +1200, Robert Mathews wrote:

    >
    > Lunix what boredom and NO SUPPORT, Please get a Brain.


    Grow up woger.

    There's support for it. You just have to pay for that.

    .... instead of pirating MS ware ...
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 11, 2003
    #4
  5. On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:00:39 +1200, Jeremy Bentham
    <> wrote:

    >Robert Mathews allegedly said:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:49:41 +1200, Jeremy Bentham
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Patrick FitzGerald allegedly said:
    >>>
    >>>> What diaster wlil there be if they ever gret their way with their evil
    >>>> Palladium plan designed to take away our control of or own computers
    >>>
    >>>They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.
    >>>
    >>>You authorised Microsoft to make updates to your security and digitla
    >>>rights management without any further consent required from you.
    >>>
    >>>Linux......It's the way to escape from the MS operating system chain-gang.

    >>
    >> Lunix what boredom and NO SUPPORT, Please get a Brain.

    >
    >Woger....or a facsimile thereof?
    >
    >Linux support is excellent. You should try it.
    >



    No it smells.
    Robert Mathews, Aug 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Robert Mathews allegedly said:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:49:41 +1200, Jeremy Bentham
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Patrick FitzGerald allegedly said:
    >>
    >>> What diaster wlil there be if they ever gret their way with their evil
    >>> Palladium plan designed to take away our control of or own computers

    >>
    >>They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.
    >>
    >>You authorised Microsoft to make updates to your security and digitla
    >>rights management without any further consent required from you.
    >>
    >>Linux......It's the way to escape from the MS operating system chain-gang.

    >
    > Lunix what boredom and NO SUPPORT, Please get a Brain.


    Woger....or a facsimile thereof?

    Linux support is excellent. You should try it.
    Jeremy Bentham, Aug 11, 2003
    #6
  7. On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:49:41 +1200, Jeremy Bentham
    <> wrote:


    >
    >They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.


    I am pleased that I never installed that Service Pack


    Patrick
    Patrick FitzGerald, Aug 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Patrick FitzGerald

    lily Guest

    "Patrick FitzGerald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:49:41 +1200, Jeremy Bentham
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.

    >
    > I am pleased that I never installed that Service Pack
    >
    >
    > Patrick


    That could be why your update is not installing correctly.
    lily, Aug 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Patrick FitzGerald

    Jean Buridan Guest

    Patrick FitzGerald allegedly said:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:49:41 +1200, Jeremy Bentham
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.

    >
    > I am pleased that I never installed that Service Pack
    >
    > Patrick


    Then you may find that you can no longer update your windows system as this
    service pack is likely to be pre-req for much that comes after.

    This is my problem with Microsoft....if you dont' accept the changes they
    mandate - whatever they are - you've just "orphaned" your system.
    Jean Buridan, Aug 12, 2003
    #9
  10. On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:39:45 +1200, Jean Buridan
    <> wrote:

    >Then you may find that you can no longer update your windows system as this
    >service pack is likely to be pre-req for much that comes after.
    >




    Not so all the other updates that came out after the service pack
    have been installed no problem at all


    Patrick
    Patrick FitzGerald, Aug 12, 2003
    #10
  11. Patrick FitzGerald

    lily Guest

    "Patrick FitzGerald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:50:14 +1200, "lily" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >That could be why your update is not installing correctly.
    > >

    >
    > Not likely as all the other updates that came out after the
    > service pack have been installed no problem at all
    >
    > Patrick


    There is no more likely reason
    If you run XP you need to keep it up to date to satisfy the cumulative
    dependencies of the bug fixes.
    SP1 is essential
    lily, Aug 12, 2003
    #11
  12. "Patrick FitzGerald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >
    > >They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.

    >
    > I am pleased that I never installed that Service Pack


    Pleasd? why?
    Nathan Mercer, Aug 12, 2003
    #12
  13. "Jean Buridan" <> wrote in message
    news:UmWZa.10826$...
    > >>That could be why your update is not installing correctly.

    > >
    > > Not likely as all the other updates that came out after the
    > > service pack have been installed no problem at all

    >
    > Cumulatalively, those other updates may equate to the Service Pack....


    No. That is not possible.

    > They all ask you to re-accept the EULA. Do you read it in full each time

    to
    > detect any changes?


    No, I have more important things to do with my time.

    > Do you want to use a system that makes you have to do this?


    I don't have to do this, I want to do this. I want to keep my machine
    secure. I want to use this system, I'm really productive on my Windows PC.
    Nathan Mercer, Aug 12, 2003
    #13
  14. On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:20:02 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:


    > "Jean Buridan" <> wrote in
    > message news:5PVZa.10818$...
    >> Then you may find that you can no longer update your windows system as

    > this
    >> service pack is likely to be pre-req for much that comes after.
    >>
    >> This is my problem with Microsoft....if you dont' accept the changes
    >> they mandate - whatever they are - you've just "orphaned" your system.

    >
    > How far back do you want Microsoft to support things for? Do you think
    > the support lifecycle on http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle is
    > reasonable?
    >
    > 5 year support for products across the board Support for current and
    > immediately proceeding service packs Support for Security patches for
    > current service pack (check the track record most patches that I can see
    > for Win2000 and WinXP are for current and previous service pack)
    >
    > In an ideal world what would you like to see happen?


    Support that is not conditional on agreeing to an altered licence. It
    shouldn't even be conditional on an ideal world.

    Richard
    Richard Hector, Aug 12, 2003
    #14
  15. On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:04:20 +1200, "Nathan Mercer"
    <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote:


    >> I am pleased that I never installed that Service Pack

    >
    >Pleasd? why?
    >



    Because of the reports in the computer mags of the grief installing
    that fix pack caused to some people




    Patrick
    Patrick FitzGerald, Aug 12, 2003
    #15
  16. Patrick FitzGerald

    Vogan Guest

    "Jeremy Bentham" <> wrote in message
    news:pUHZa.10660$...
    > Patrick FitzGerald allegedly said:
    >
    > > What diaster wlil there be if they ever gret their way with their evil
    > > Palladium plan designed to take away our control of or own computers

    >
    > They already did that with WinXP Service Pack 1.
    >
    > You authorised Microsoft to make updates to your security and digitla

    rights
    > management without any further consent required from you.
    >
    > Linux......It's the way to escape from the MS operating system chain-gang.
    >
    >


    And now it looks as if you might be chained to SCO
    Vogan, Aug 13, 2003
    #16
  17. Patrick FitzGerald

    whoa Guest

    On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:35:29 +1200, Lennier <> said

    >On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:05:09 +1200, Vogan wrote:
    >
    >> And now it looks as if you might be chained to SCO

    >
    >Nope - the GPL sorts SCO's spurious claim.
    >

    Wow, quick, tell IBM. They think they need lawyers to fight the claim. I bet
    they are so grateful they'll reward you bigtime.
    whoa, Aug 16, 2003
    #17
  18. On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:52:49 +1200, whoa wrote:


    >>Nope - the GPL sorts SCO's spurious claim.
    >>

    > Wow, quick, tell IBM. They think they need lawyers to fight the claim. I
    > bet they are so grateful they'll reward you bigtime.


    IBM are using GPL as part of their argument.

    Every single GPL case in the past has resulted in a settlement by the
    offending companies. None has dared let it go to a court, let alone a
    judgement.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 16, 2003
    #18
  19. "Uncle StoatWarbler" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:52:49 +1200, whoa wrote:
    >
    >
    > >>Nope - the GPL sorts SCO's spurious claim.
    > >>

    > > Wow, quick, tell IBM. They think they need lawyers to fight the claim. I
    > > bet they are so grateful they'll reward you bigtime.

    >
    > IBM are using GPL as part of their argument.
    >
    > Every single GPL case in the past has resulted in a settlement by the
    > offending companies. None has dared let it go to a court, let alone a
    > judgement.
    >
    >

    This one won't get there either, they'll deal, SCO have patent infringements
    to address, that means they will have to pay lawyers instead of doing
    contingency deals.
    Howard Johnson, Aug 16, 2003
    #19
  20. Patrick FitzGerald

    Lennier Guest

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:05:09 +1200, Vogan wrote:

    > And now it looks as if you might be chained to SCO


    Nope - the GPL sorts SCO's spurious claim.

    Lennier
    Lennier, Nov 21, 2003
    #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. ErmYouKnow

    Ditching Micro$oft

    ErmYouKnow, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    453
    William Poaster
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. skfghfjh

    ---Micro$oft Wins 'Tabbed Browsing' Patent---

    skfghfjh, Sep 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    916
    Harvey Van Sickle
    Sep 15, 2004
  3. Andrew McDonald

    Micro$oft at it aain

    Andrew McDonald, Dec 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,011
    stacey
    Dec 10, 2003
  4. Robert Mathews

    Re: What is M$oft up to with security updates ?

    Robert Mathews, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    362
    Nathan Mercer
    Aug 12, 2003
  5. Bling Bling

    High quality security by Micro$oft (yeah right!)

    Bling Bling, Oct 30, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    417
    Not Dave
    Oct 30, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page