Re: What's the use of MS Update if customers get chastised when trusting it?

joe wrote:
...Windows update is not meant to offer irrelevant and downright
faulty updates. Defeats the purpose of the program completely

Shenan wrote:
It has been explained before - many times - on these newsgroups by
many different people that relying on the Windows Updates for
hardware drivers should *not* be done. The hardware drivers that
appear there have to be submitted to Microsoft by the hardware
vendors anyway. They have to pay for the priviledge to have them
placed there. There is also a process through which the drivers to
be placed there have to go through to get the 'logo'/'certified'.
That all takes time. By the time it is done - usually several
releases from the manufacturer have passed by - sometimes solving
issues with that original driver, sometimes just new features,
sometimes nothing major.

Due to the fact that the driver provided by Microsoft's updates for
products that are non-Microsoft can be older than 'the latest' ->
it's usually better *not* to take the chance. Just because it
passed through whatever 'process' to get the logo/certification
does not mean there are not problems with it - problems that the
manufacturer may have found and repaired in later versions of the
driver that they have chosen not to pay Microsoft to
test/certify/put up for them.

The Microsoft update process is (surprisingly - like everything
else) not perfect. Things can and will go wrong - particularly
when you throw in the pure number of variables you speak of when
talking about computers and changing things across millions of
them. You can help limit exposure to problems a bit by changing
the downloads to something more manual where possible or getting
the updates manually completely and reading about them first. The
suggestions in these newsgroups about hardware drivers have almost
always been the same:

- Don't update hardware drivers unless it fixes something (or you
think it might fix something) you are actually having trouble with
(or if you just have to have the new feature it might have in it.)
- When updating hardware drivers - get them from the manufacturer
of said hardware. If Microsoft had nothing to do with the creation
or support of the hardware originally - why trust them for it now?

Also - what did you mean by, " I knew I didn't need it but I wasn't
sure "? It's one or the other. You cannot "know you don't need"
something and then "not be sure"... ;-)

In that case (this is not just computer advice) from now own - I
suggest you research and "be sure" before doing something if your
gut is telling you that you don't "need it". ;-) The error here is
not __just__ on "their part" for offering the update - but for
those who accepted/installed the optional update(s) when they "knew
[they] didn't need it". ;-)



Responded to inline...

The conversation (in its entirity):
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/78dd672e67154ae8/6631f6f28db00447?lnk=st&q=insubject%3ATHEY+insubject%3AGOT+insubject%3AME#




Michel Merlin wrote:
1) Saying « relying on the Windows Updates for hardware drivers
should *not* be done » is essentially denying the very purpose of
the Hardware section of the MS Update site. What is the purpose of
MS Update if one can't rely on it?

Relying on alone Windows Updates for hardware drivers is foolish, IMHO.
You don't rely on your computer to work all the time - otherwise why waste
your time with backups.
Nothing is perfect - if it was - the development on software and computing
advancement would have stopped.
I am not denying the purpose of the "hardware" section of the MS Update
site. I am recommending against it and giving what I see as the better
alternative.

2) Saying « Don't update hardware drivers unless it fixes something
», thus reducing driver update to resuming something that was (or
was assumed) working, is essentially denying any chance of progress
or improvement. I was strongly against such deny a decade ago; sure
facts now too often prompt to agree - at least when Microsoft is
concerned - but not always, and anyway this should not be or remain
the case.

First - that is partial quote.

" Don't update hardware drivers unless it fixes something (or you
think it might fix something) you are actually having trouble with
(or if you just have to have the new feature it might have in it.) "

Progress of what? If my refrigerator's ice machine is working fine and does
exactly what I want and what it is supposed to - now where do I gain getting
a new ice maker? I lose money, have to install/get it installed/risk it not
doing what the other one already did/compatibility issues and since I didn't
need/ask for anything more than what the original one did - anything new it
does wasn't requested in the first place.

If you mean of Microsoft improving the process - it is my opinion they
should *not* offer hardware driver updates for products they do not produce.
Right now many people blame Microsoft for everything that goes wrong with
their Windows computer. They update to Vista and complain that their
scanner isn't compatible, that their video card does not have drivers - and
it must be Microsoft's fault. Even though they did not create the products
that are the trouble point. I think each vendor should update their
products. If they choose to give (pay for the right) some basic driver to
integrate into the base OS (not for upgrading via the built in update
facility) - that's fine. Working right after an install and then updating
is fine. I still hate integrating drivers, personally. hah

Of course - opinions on this vary - you may want Microsoft to take central
control.

3) When you try installing a driver that is not MS-certified, you
get warned *by MS (in its OS)* that you are wrong. Then when you
install a WHQL-certified driver *using MS Update site*, you are
told again that you are wrong.

You are not told you are wrong - you are warned that the driver has not been
tested by Microsoft. What stock you put into that is up to you - I put
little stock into it when the product was not created by Microsoft to begin
with - it just so happens I chose to run Microsoft's OS (possibly among
others) on the system that contains said hardware. Since the hardware
manufacturer created said product - I will trust them over Microsoft for
supporting it too.

4) And when you notice the incoherence, MS-MVPs not only won't try
to forward the problem up the ladder to management and developers
until it gets fixed - but will even chastise you for not worshiping
MS (staff or MVP-gods or else). Doubt it? see below the incredible
"lessons" about it, and - cerise sur le gâteau - the final one
about « Also - what did you mean by, " I knew I didn't need it but
I wasn't sure "? » (and please don't laugh!).

I don't care about Microsoft one bit. I've said it before - I will say it
over and over. I was doing this long before I was 'awarded' MVP. I will
likely still be doing it if the title is removed. In fact - in order to be
considered for the title - you have to have shown you are willing to help
people in the newsgroups with your own free time and others put you in for
the award. If Microsoft goes away completely - I will probably be in
whatever newsgroup for whatever product that takes its place.

As for my comment - I'm sorry if you don't see the irony in what was said.

5) We all should remember that MS MVPs (or other official
"volunteers") are actually not as volunteer as regular users
posting here, who OTOH are most often doing so without any reward
of any sort (e.g. no travel or invitation or free software), even
without any consideration or indulgence or friendliness or
understanding their suggestions or even trying to understand them.

Incorrect - see above. I did this for YEARS before I was awarded the
title - I will be doing it for years if the title disappears. MVPs are
still volunteers. Just as much volunteers as anyone else - no different
really. After all - if I stop posting - the next award period - I probably
won't get the award and any benefits I mght have been getting - stop.

In conclusion I firmly request that MS management re-teaches their
staff (and "volunteers" of all sorts) about:

- respecting customers' choices and preferences

They can choose as they like - but if you don't learn from incorrect
choices - what's the point? Don't like it phrased that way - how about 'if
you don't know there are more choices - how can you be sure you made the
right choice?' Many people may not know/think about that Microsoft does not
produce the drivers for every product that their product might be installed
upon - that each manufacturer actually produces the drivers for each OS they
want to support their product on.

- respecting *at all levels* MS statements, like the ones asking
customers to trust MU and MS-certified drivers (developers' level:
strive at making everything work as stated; MVPs level: of course
tell users when things FAIL to work as stated, but don't pretend it
is right to never trust it)

Respecting a statement is not the same as following it like it was law.
Trust but verify.

I have had positive results with Microsoft Updates for hardware drivers, I
have also had negative results. However - since there is another option
(going to the actual hardware manufacturer for support of the product in
question) - it is my opinion more people would be better off doing that.

- be modest when facing customers (e.g. never try teaching life to
them!); remember (as is well known in all mature markets, like
cars, curtains, food, etc) that the *average* customer is *high
above* the *average* sales or "support" staff (and even more above
*average* "volunteers" of all sorts); and this, in education, in
knowledge, hence accordingly in modesty, politeness, regards to
others; hence the low-rank-looking customer is *generally* much
more knowledgeable than he pretends. All this tends to be forgotten
in immature markets (like IT currently).

It is a personal choice to give advice about whatever here - I volunteer
here, I freely give my advice and expertise in a particular field. Since it
is my choice and this is a public forum - how I choose to reply is my
choice. Those who read it can decide on their own what they should do - I
would ask nothing more. I choose my words very carefully in every answer.
I did not chastise anyone for their choice - I merely stated facts -
allowing the person reading to do their own research based on what I gave
and come to a conclusion. As for 'teaching life to them' - why not? Are
you saying that those reading this will be sheep in all advice and just take
it? People are not lemmings.

- above all, be true in everything you say.

I am 100% earnest and true in what I say - I recommend HIGHLY against
getting hardware drivers for non-microsoft products from Microsoft Updates.
I have been giving advice here for many years - without and with a title. I
voluntarily do this because I like doing it. I will be who I am when I do
it. Has worked for me all this time... Doesn't mean it might not change a
little here and there - but life is change.

You are welcomed to your opinion. I am welcome to mine. I'm glad you chose
to express yours.

I still feel people would be better off if Microsoft did not offer updates
for products it does not make. If I have trouble with my LawnBoy lawn
mower - I don't call Honda for parts - even if I read somewhere some of them
are interchangeable.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Avoid ATI PCI Express (3GIO) Filter Driver update for Vista
    ... updates from windows update is optional and only recommanded for ... Microsoft hardware drivers, other drivers if needed (if it ain,t ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Common Windows XP Shutdown problem
    ... My hardware drivers came preinstalled by my OEM and I have reported no ... I'm running Windows XP professional SP2 English ... can't always be due to hardware device drivers conflicts. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Whats the use of MS Update if customers get chastised when trusting it?
    ... Microsoft does not monitor this all. ... to trust MU and MS-certified drivers (developers' level: ... regards to others; ... The hardware drivers that appear there have to be ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: THEY GOT ME
    ... updates that mess up their customer's computers. ... drivers from windows Update. ... The hardware drivers that appear there have to be ... submitted to Microsoft by the hardware vendors anyway. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: THEY GOT ME
    ... drivers from windows Update. ... Windows update is not meant to ... The hardware drivers that appear there have to be ... submitted to Microsoft by the hardware vendors anyway. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)