I am no great lover of Microsoft and a lot of the flak that goes their way is fully justified.
However, some of the moans and whining that goes on about security updates etc leaves me wondering if a large portion of the world's population is insane.
Look at it like this - If your computer gets a virus or is in some other way compromised by Microsoft not issuing a patch for a known issue, then by all means complain.
In the mean time - DOWNLOAD and install the patches / fixes and be grateful that you are not having to reinstall everything or worse!
At least they are addressing the faults.
Think of your computer being like your home: Would you go out and leave the doors and windows open? Of course not - so close the vulnerabilities on your computer!

hmmm, I do know people that go out leaving the doors unlocked. Granted it is their own fault if something happens. Anyway, I do not want to be force fed any service pack. If you are wise, you do not download any major update as soon as it's available. And yes, they teach that in school, for companies even. I'd rather have a car with no air bag than a car that doesn't run. That's what installing a major update can do to your computer - completely disable it.

Same holds true for the major Linux updates.

I totally agree about SP2. I installed it when it first became available and a couple of my key programs stopped working. However, the blessing was that Microsoft allowed you to uninstall it again - which I did - so no great problem. I have now reinstalled it after the other software suppliers upgraded their programs and all is now working well.
My reference above was actually to security updates as supplied on a rolling basis by Microsoft to address current problems. I really do feel that these should be installed as soon as they become available!
By the way, you are fortunate that your friends can go out and leave their doors unlocked. It would be nice if I could do that but one of these days I would come home to what I would deserve - an empty or ransacked house! Lets face it, the same holds true for unprotected computers.

when they release patches, i get happy! yahhh!!! you people complain..weird!!! ummm..get highspeed internet..maybe that is the source of your b****ing ;)

The various "flavours" of Linux have regular security updates and fixes. The last time I used Linux (mandrake 9.1), the security fixes/updates were far more, and more frequent than with Windows 2000/XP. Macintosh have regular updates as well. It's just that with only around 3% of the desktop market there arn't as many as with Windows. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Mac had a similar userbase as Windows does, they would also be flatout patching OS 10.xx, even more than they currently do.
Stop whinging and get a life people. No one is forcing you to update your OS. But like never changing the oil in your car, you'd be an idiot if you didn't!

It's funny, because I have a co-worker that ends up downloading/compiling/installing a new kernel for Linux every week, sometimes 2-3 times a week... and since they have to download the entire thing, then compile it, then install it, then test it... they end up wasting an entire day every week because of it.

At least with Windows Updates you can download the update, install it, and reboot in about 5-10 minutes depending on size of the downloads, and speed of the connection and computer. My servers take about 20 minutes at most. I schedule that to happen at specific times to reduce impact on users, and life is peachy.

Running OS X 10.3.8 myself, I've only had to run an update every couple of months. Not a couple of times a month when it comes to the Windows computers that I monitor at work. And when it comes to rebooting, my Apple beats the pants off any Windows machine.

"And when it comes to rebooting, my Apple beats the pants off any Windows machine."

That is the biggest complaint I have about microsoft at the moment. The real problem is all those darn services that run in the background and most people never use them, but MS requires a restart since you cannot update a file that is in use--e.g., if USER.EXE must be updated it has to restart the computer. Maybe if MS would just 100% disable services until they are specifically needed the world would be better. I disable at least one service on every single XP machine I've used (usually at least the windows messenger service). Why? I don't NEED it. Look under the services tab of msconfig, look at all the stuff you never use. Why does MS enable all of them by default? I can only speculate that there might be too many third party software incompatibilities if they had...

"When is enough enough?"
Let me get this straight: you complain that Windows isn't secure, and when Microsoft does something about it, you complain that you have to upgrade [for free] the fixes? Jeebus.

It's called "perpetual whining". Whiners like to pick a company, celebrity, movie, musician, etc. to complain about and no matter what the issue, they take the side that allows them to complain the longest and loudest. Forget logic. Does anyone really care who uses what O/S? If you do, you need to get a life.

the fixes shouldn't get a chance to exist, it should be fixed form the begining

...in a perfect world

get real

Give Microsoft a break? I tried to install SP-2 on my Toshiba Satellite A-10 PC recently and it simply hung after nearly two hours of seeming to do very little. It then tokk almost four hours to get the PC back to its previous working condition.

Two issues:
1. I know a little about these things, so what hope does the normal user have given such a problem?
2. Given I can't install SP-2, how do I get the benefit from these later 'critical' up-dates?

I think Microsoft ought to give me a break, Toshiba portables are mainstream machines, up-grades ought to work.

PS: Googling after this incident revealed that SP-2 problems on portables are quite common!

Did you bother to check that several Toshiba models require a BIOS update?

Did you update any other drivers/software that may have been declared incompatible.

And to think you call yourself somewhat-knowledgeable.

That's the same argument the woman used to sue McDonald's for selling her "HOT" coffee that she spilled on her lap and *gasp* burned herself. They should have done better to prevent her own ignorance.

Hey!

If you hate the updates in XP you'll REALLY hate Mcafee!!

I dont know if its just me, but it seems they update just about every week. It dosent bug me at all. I'm happy that at least they care.

BTW: I never had a single problem with running Microsoft software(Except for Windows ME; remember that one? hah.) about 75% of microsofts problems comes from some of the 'perpetual whiners' and anti-wintendows smart guys who make the malware or figure out the holes and exploits in microsoft software. The other 25% is just bad press.

You cant get mad a microsoft if you don't keep up to date with a Virus scanner and Firewall. Its your own fault for not securing your computer. Always remember that your computer is only as smart as the user. If you really don't want the updates just disable 'automatic updates.' If you don't know how... Then I feel for you, and your ignorant computer.

[EDIT]: OOPS! I ment to make a new post. Didnt mean to reply.

they didnt say they were "somewhat knowledgable" they stated that they knew "a little about these things".

also, computers are not made around software, software is made around computers. The fact that this person's laptop worked fine before the update indicates that microsoft did their job in creating software (operating system) around the computer. The fact that after the update that the system failed to work properly indicates that microsoft is attempting to make manufacturers build their computers around microsoft's faulty operating system, so that - by modifyiong the computer, you have a better chance of getting your previously working fine computer to work that way again.

this whole sp2 deal has been a thorn in MANY computer users sides since its inception, and microsoft forcing all xp users to download the sp2 update or else is reprehensible. I always said, if it aint broke, dont fix it. if you are happy with how your computer runs, then screw updates.

FYI: YOU do :) if you use any of the billions of atm machines out there (95% of which are still running on OS/2 2.1)

So whose fault is it? When using strictly Microsoft products, does SP2 work? Yes, amazingly it does. Anybody want to know why the installs of SP2 hang up? According to the number of KB articles at microsoft, the #1 reason: SPYWARE, specifically TV Media Viewer. #2 reason: Out-of-date antivirus software, especially since many PC's come with a free trial of Norton or Mcafee, and they never bother to update since they have to pay. Microsoft's fault? Better yet, did you actually close all of your programs (meaning PROCESSES and TASKS as well) before running the SP2 update AS IT SPECIFICALLY WARNS THEY CAN CAUSE SETUP TO HANG? They give you fair warning--Microsoft's fault? It is NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE SERVICE PACK--THE STUPID SOFTWARE VENDORS WERE GIVEN AN OPPURTUNITY TO TEST SP2 WITH THEIR SOFTWARE SINCE MAY OF 2004, AND THE DUMB BA$TARDS DIDN'T TEST UNTIL AUGUST (I'm refering to software vendors in general, no specific ones). AVG, a FREE antivirus program, was fixed for SP2 compatability 6 months ahead of Norton, so it was humanly possible for software vendors to fix the problems but the vendors boycotted SP2. Microsoft's fault? MS took 2,000 people away from the Longhorn project and moved them to test SP2 in all configurations possible. Windows Longhorn will not include the WINFS file system because MS took so many people to test SP2. Microsoft's fault? SP2 has received more testing and longer testing than any peice of software in history, and you people blame Microsoft? If everywhere YOU go Microsoft is horrible, maybe you need to look at other common denominators before judging them.

"SP2 has received more testing and longer testing than any peice of software in history"

Ummm, no. Every version of windows released to the public "for sale" has been a beta level product :)

Well, practically every software goes through beta testing, yes, I guess I meant more towards updates. I can safely say that it has received more testing than any other service pack, no?

When is enough enough ??

I've never seen MS have this many patches in years
makes you contemplate other options.....

>I've never seen MS have this many patches in >years makes you contemplate other options.....

It's funny how all the ignorant people complain about patches, while the experts thank the stars Microsoft released them.

-Christian Blackburn

That's probably because you don't bother to run Windows Updates very often, or else you are just making a statement of ignorance.

Microsoft's average is about 5-7 updates per month, and they announce them across the board for Windows, IE, Media Player, Office, Exchange, and other server products.

In February they released 12... that is more than the 8 for this month. Even if you count the non-security/high-impact ones, that's only 10. Last month we were given a break, because they didn't release any...

Ironic that the same people on this article that are complaining because they release too many updates are the same people who last month complained that they didn't release any yet Windows was so insecure. HINT: MJM and JEFF, YES, THIS MEANS YOU... GET A CLUE.

I wonder if i can block it in my firewall

Or you could just turn off Automatic Updates. It's not like their going to push the update to you no matter what.

Yeah, you go ahead and do that... I will anxiously await the next worm infection taking down your PC so you can stop posting such ridiculous posts.

If you don't want the Windows Updates, don't go to the site and turn off Automatic Updates via Control Panel.

But please-- stop posting nonsense here so that those of us who actually care about security can continue encouraging the updates to protect people.

that means that you wont get updated until you get sp2, you can choose

whatever dood, I have my antiviruses. I just don't think people should be forced to do things such as updates.

I barely use ms on the internet anyway.

"But please-- stop posting nonsense here..." No I am serious. It's not that I don't care about security, it's that I am confident. Well, I love you anyway.

Couldn't they at least tell us the versions of these products? Exchange 2000 or 2003? The difference means hours of overtime for me and a little chuckle at Microsoft's TCO raving. Lowest TCO if our patches never required a reboot! whoops! They do!

Oh come on, you should know by now that most updates affect all versions of the product, especially the most current supported versions. The version is irrelevant... Anticipate up to 10 updates, and then be happy if it turns out to be less. :)

It will be interesting to see what the optional "high-priority" patches are for. Although, they probably won't make any visible difference...

Yes, and next month they shall supply pathches to fix the patches. Seems it is a never ending problem no matter how much they try to convince the public, they are secure. But one nice thing, they are trying to do the best they can, or are they?

I would prefer to patch and reboot once a month (which is the reality for my system high-use web&file server/desktop system) than not patch and lose months of data when the next Blaster/Doom/Netsky-like worm is released.

So yes, I would say they do try their best, but then again, I'm an above-average and high-intelligence user and not a lazy whiner that screws up my system by running junk software only to turn around and blame everyone but my own actions.

Patch and release... That's what software is about. Every large company does it and we want them to. Without patches/updates/fixes software becomes old and holes are found and exploited.

- MS does it.
- Apple does it (but you have to pay for most of their upgrades as "upgrades.")
- The OpenSource world release updates every day
- Novell didn't do it, but we know what happened to NetWare.

Microsoft is a HUGE Company so they have to be more careful as their products cover at least 75% of the market...so as something new comes up they have to fix it ALL software needs to be updated or patched look at Mac its updated their 0sx software 4 times since its inception and not nearly as many people use mac whereas at least everyone knows what A PC is and again since more people are using it if you want to attack the largest source you are aiming for the big gun hence hundreds of people looking for a way to make a name of themselves... "Oh Look I found another security flaw.." I have NEVER had any problems because of a security exploit b/c I d/l the patch when it is available...when the huge rpc error happened I never was affected b/c I was smart enough to keep my stuff updated...most to the security exploits that are discovered they may be there but rarely are they used and when someone finds a way to exploit it typically MS has already made the patch for it but people couldnt be bothered to keep their stuff updated

EXACTLY. Users who take time to care about their computers are almost always well protected... all it takes is a small amount of education and concern. :)

...but not a blind willingness to blindly apply every patch Redmond releases.

It is FAR more prudent to evaluate with care, THEN patch IFF (If And Only If) required.

you say blindly well...if it says its critical obviousily there is a reason for it when you do windows update you have the option of the critcal updates or custom regardless the critical ones should be installed again look at blaster no one thought much of it then the day it happened all hell broke lose and that was an update that was released WAY before blaster came about

Everyone on all sides of this discussion has validity in their points:

Yes, some(likely lots & lots) don't upkeep their system properly AND to boot browse nefarious parts of the web, but on the other hand-- 'responsible' users also aren't spared: some apps, usually newfangled ones, recommended by respectable sites, try to foist malware aboard, whether by the original author or cracked by the hosting site... i'd recommend installrite or similar product: to see exactly what. Just try innocently reading the lyrics of a song you like while usint IE-- if you pick the wrong site, watch out: you don't just just get a surreptitious hijack attempt or two, but rather, an agressive & complete takeover injecting a c***tail of several malware components-- this despite how high all security settings are set to & a batallion of installed security apps including blockers & innoculators...

As far as security upgrades, it's human nature to not want to be a "patch beta tester", and to tend to wait for initial results of the first users-- especially since some of these updates, as per their documentation, cannot be subsequently removed....
Without having to cite and/or debate any specific past history, the fact that the vast majority of users-- to wit esp., the majority of those in corporate-- do this, would suggest there's very likely some validity to this course of action: if nothing else, because 'usually' the collective majority is not wrong about something.

No.

I've also seen critical updates break apps, specifically one DVD XCopy Platinum. We won't even get into the mayhem that can cause in a corporate setting.

Patching Blindly Is Just Not A Good Idea and as an IT professional (a Security Specialist, no less) I'll never recommend it.

That's what I always tell everyone. You are my hero.

a legit Windows update broke an illegal piece of software!?!? Oh that's right. "Security Specialists" don't care anything about legality... wait...

3-2-1 Software's product isn't illegal. At least not up here in Canada where we're still thankfully enlightened (and smart) enough to respect fair use.

That aside, an OS update shouldn't break ANY piece of software and if you aren't intelligent enough to recognise that salient point, get out of the business.

Well did you update your DVD program? Don't blame Microsoft for a program of yours that doesn't work, blame the company who made the program for not working around critical fixes for your computer.

I gotta say, I haven't had a patch break any program or the OS itself since the days of Windows NT 4.0 when a few specific circumstances caused SP2 and SP4 to crash the OS. Ever since that time, I have yet to see an SP break something through the fault of MS.

Now that being said, if you don't keep all your other software up to date as well as the OS, then of course you're eventually going to have problems. You see, a lot of companies know when a flaw exists in the OS and they write their code using sloppy techniques that take advantage of that flaw. When MS fixes the flaw, the software needs updating too.

What's the big deal? As long as companies aren't charging for the patches, deal with it.

then you being the "specialist" you claim to be would read the security bulletins b/c microsoft can only do so much..it is impossible to guarantee that a patch from microsoft or any other company will be able to 100% guarantee that it will NOT affect another program...if microsoft does see that there could be an issue they do give forewarning for example service pack 2 gave quite a few programs that could cause a problem BUT its not microsofts fault its the company's fault that makes the software. Every piece of software that microsoft said might be an issue, that company issued an update or patch. Some software companies issue incompatible patches that cause the product not to work.

maybe it's the program that had bad coding :p

Didn't MS re-call SP2 about 1 day after it was released, delaying the release until MS fixed SP2?

Hey, accidents happen. You can't really blame either MS or the other software companies for break in compatability... a service pack must exist before a company makes their product compatable.

Yes, SP2 for NT4.0 years ago, lol... you really need to get your facts straight before you post.

SP2 for Windows XP was never "recalled" or reposted for technical reasons.

That was a question not a fact. thanks for straightening it out.

jeesh, can never get a break from you huh.

DVD XCopy is no longer available or supported. There are many older programs that are quite good that are no longer developed, and - or they have been bought out by someone else and thrown in file 13. I own such a program called Microfrafx Picture publisher Professional. it was a direct copmpetitor to something corel was selling, corel bought them out and trashed the product (which was superior to their own). Now then, there will be no patches available, and since I legally purchased the license to this software and a substantial portion of my income comes from work I do with it, logically, I would begrudge the operating system manufacturer for putting out a patch that prevents my sofgtware from working properly (as it has through 3 versions of the software, and in windows 98, windows 2000, windows me and the current non-sp2 windows xp. If I applied the patch and it browk the program, naturally i would be more than a little upset.

all that I am saying is that, patches that "patch holes" and "fix operating system flaws" should do just those two things, and since neither of those categories entail a significant issue with already running software, then it should be a non-issue. But it isnt. Microsfoft needs to be more aware that the end user is a fickle animal, and when push comes to shove, the more they trample on the people, the less people there will be to buy their software. period.

that's correct, me being the specialist that I am, I fail to see how an update that addresses areas of the os that a program never accesses anyhow could break a program.

and if a program works fine as is through 4 versions of windows and 3 versions of the software, then any logical person would expect continued operation at 100% levels. if the prtogram developer made an update that when applied, caused the program operation to fail then that is the application programmer's responsibilty to fix. If microsoft releases a patch to repair areas x,y, and z of the operating system and the program doesnt access areas x,y, or z, but areas c, d, and f instead, then it is the company who released the patch, Microsoft's responsibility to ascertain why a patch that they THOUGHT only repaired problems in areas x,y, and z, inadvertantly also caused problems with areas c,d, and f of their operating system. The very idea that it is the application's fault and not microsoft's is absurd. If you go to a garage and have a vacumn leak fixed and all of a sudden the hood release stops working, who's fault is that? Not the car manufacturer. obviously when the mechanic used the release to open the hood who knows how many times, that the mechanic broke it. in this case, the mechanic is microsoft.

Very interesting, MS goes out of its way to provide documentation of the platform to every Jack@ss that can read SDK documentation, and somehow its MS' fault that the idiot developers do not adhere to the recommended coding practices? As a former developer I am amazed at how easy it is for some of you on this board to criticize MS' OSes. Just how many of you are able to develop an OS Kernel? How many of you even know wht Ring 0 is? Until you have spent 4 years developing an OS that for all intents and purposes, the entire world will use, I think you need to shut down some of the criticizisms.