Patching is nice, but I'll take tested, reliable software over release-and-fix (and fix and fix and fix...) any day. By way of analogy, you can patch a bad tire twenty times, but it's still going to blow up and leave you stranded! M$ claims that you should have Win constantly auto-update itself. (If you've been silly enough to install a Windoze consumer product later than W98, that is.) Problems with this idea:

1) If WindozeUpdate works as well as any other M$ product...Well, 'nuff said there, what?
2) Jesse's comment below (also see 1)
3) Yes, we'd all dearly love to open our operating systems up to M$ to muck about with remotely. This is the same OS that locks up when you perform an advanced OS task like shutting down, deleting a folder, etc
4) Given M$'s history of being hacked mercilessly (try opening a new Hotmail account and see how much spam you get!) the chance of someone hacking into their WinUpdate servers and slipping a trojan into one of their patches is pretty good. Everyone with WinUpdate enabled gets it! (Patching the patch with a virus, you see - deliciously ironic, what?)
5) Oh hell, four should be enough. Add your own. *LOL*

Ever see one of those security certificate popups that reads "Always trust content from Micro$oft corporation"...??? *ROFL* ;c)

Jesse Kline wrote:

"Microsoft placed responsibility on computer users who failed to install
a patch that had been available since at least last June."

That's funny because the last two times I tried to use Windows Update
(on Windows 98 and XP), it would download the update, start installing
it and then just stop. So much for that idea :-).

Jesse




Reply via email to