RE: Open letter to MS

From: Chuck Davis (ChuckDavis_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 09/25/04


Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:33:07 -0700

TomP

>From day 1, with Windows XP, I have always had Automatic update turned on
for a 1:00 a.m. download on one computer and 3:00 a.m. on the other. I have
never been selective and it has worked. Our computer club has also found that
automatic update on its 15 Windows SP computers has kept us out of problems.
This was especially true during the summer of 2003 when the patch was
applied before the massive worm attacks.

We did receive a Windows XP SP2 CD and installed it on all computers. We
religiously use auto update on all copies of our antivirus programs.

To keep the adware at bay along with other security issues, we installed
Mozilla Firefox and set it as the default browser.

"TomP" wrote:

> To Microsoft,
>
> RE: Windows XP
>
> I must say that I am not, at all, pleased with the "new"
> (critical & security) updater. It would seem that in your
> infinite wisdom - the (average) user is not capable of
> making the correct decisions regarding which update should
> be applied. On two occasions this past week, as part of a
> XP repair, I tried to apply the latest security updates to
> the clients PC. I loaded the newest "updater" (this is
> now required) to proceed. I choose "Custom Install", in
> which case, the PC just sat there spinning its wheels for
> 30 minutes (scanning my PC) before I terminated the
> process - choose "Express Install". This then loaded
> every update that was available. I had no options to
> choose and pick which updates "I" felt were needed, in
> this instance.
>
> On the second occasion (one of my personal PC's) I tried
> to by-pass the newer updater - no luck. I tried to
> download the updates from the download site - no luck. It
> seems that I needed to start the "Automatic Update
> Service" (which I purposely disabled) and I could proceed
> no further.
>
> Some months ago I migrated my users over to a Mozilla
> browser and mail utility to avoid all the potential
> problems using IE and Outlook involve. I will now be
> migrating my users over to Linux. This way, I will have
> the ability to put on my PC's what I feel is necessary and
> needed - not what Microsoft feels is in my best interest.
>
> * ftr:
> I am a MCSE and have helped trained many others on the
> MCSE track, since "99"
>
> Regards,
> TomP
>
>
>
>



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Slow PC after migration from NT4.0 SRV to SBS 2003 R2
    ... Everything when fine folowing the article "Migrating from Small ... Business Server 4.5 or Windows NT Server 4.0 to Windows Small ... We also add new computers to the "new" domain. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Migrating Multiple users from one computer to another.
    ... and 200 new computers to deploy to users who already have loads of local data ... Tool it seems these tools are designed for migrating a single user. ... How can we migrate multiple users including local data which may not ... Primarily we will be migrating from Windows XP to Windows XP but we do have ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Error on windows xp with a macro created in excel 2000 and windows 2000
    ... I have a macro creted in excel 2000 and windows 2000 that function OK in others computers with same Operating System. ... But I am migrating to Windows XP /excel 2000 and the users with windows XP the macro don't function. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Help with 070-217
    ... The network contains 25,000 computers. ... single Windows 2000 domain named research.contoso.com. ... Server computers that are configured as domain controllers. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Re: Help with 070-217
    ... The network contains 25,000 computers. ... > single Windows 2000 domain named research.contoso.com. ... > Server computers that are configured as domain controllers. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)