New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: Barry Watzman on 19 Apr 2010 15:49 The reality is that you WILL lose. If you update all the time, a few updates will bite you. If you don't use automatic update, you will miss an update whose absence will bite you. The system is rigged; we [users] lose. Either way. But, overall, for most people, doing all "CRITICAL" updates (e.g. auto update on ... which ONLY installs CRITICAL updates automatically) is the better course. [In large part because for most real-world people, anything other than "auto updates" becomes, in reality, almost no updates at all, almost never.] BillW50 wrote: > In news:hqfcai$f1u$4(a)news.eternal-september.org, > Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:34:25 -0400: >> When the problem is a "security hole", the "brokenness" may not be >> obvious. >> BillW50 wrote: >>> I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that >>> ain't broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more >>> and more will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a >>> good thing to blindly always do. > > Yes I admit on paper it looks good to update all of the time. Although > in practice, it looks far better avoiding updates. >
From: BillW50 on 19 Apr 2010 18:13 In news:4bcc9f03$0$2525$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk, Bernard Peek typed on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:20:51 +0100: > On 19/04/10 19:08, BillW50 wrote: >> In news:4bcb3be6$0$2533$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk, >> Bernard Peek typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:05:42 +0100: >>> On 18/04/10 17:31, Barry Watzman wrote: >>>> The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) >>>> that will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and >>>> every time you do certain things within them. Even if you are not >>>> even connected to the internet. The best solution may be to >>>> configure UAC on a program-by-program basis. This actually is >>>> possible, but it's not something that MS intended to support, and, >>>> consequently, it's not easy or user friendly. >>> >>> Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to >>> the data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may >>> have other unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from >>> companies like that. >> >> Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to >> store data in them? > > My mistake. I should have said program folder. Heck lots of applications write in the Program Folder. Off of the top of my head, instant messengers (which stores the chat logs there), anti-virus software (which updates the virus database there), Microsoft Office (which stores saved templates there), Faststone Capture (stores saved screen shots there), etc. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)
From: AJL on 19 Apr 2010 21:44 "BillW50" <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >Here is Apple's commercial about Vista's UAC, remember it? > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw I hadn't seen that commercial before. Very clever. But not clever enough to get me to buy one of Apple's overpriced laptops. Not that they care though. When I was recently by the local mall's Apple store (Phoenix area) it was jam packed...
From: Happy Oyster on 19 Apr 2010 21:45 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:44:18 -0700, AJL <8239(a)fakeaddress.com> wrote: >"BillW50" <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >>Here is Apple's commercial about Vista's UAC, remember it? >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw > >I hadn't seen that commercial before. Very clever. But not clever >enough to get me to buy one of Apple's overpriced laptops. Not that >they care though. When I was recently by the local mall's Apple store >(Phoenix area) it was jam packed... Since I for the first time had to deal with Apple material I was again and again confronted with badly designed toy stuff. If there is something I will never buy, then it is from Apple. -- Die volle H�rte: http://www.kindersprechstunde.at *************************************************************** Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5710
From: tony sayer on 22 Apr 2010 10:41
In article <hqp98b$4al$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> scribeth thus >In news:JeoRJdDKBA0LFwXm(a)bancom.co.uk, >tony sayer typed on Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:52:42 +0100: >>> I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows >>> 2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in >>> 2002. Although I had it networked to another computer and that one >>> was setup to scan the unprotected one. And that was very >>> interesting. Two servers slipped two viruses on the computer within >>> 90 seconds and I didn't even access any of those servers. Those bots >>> finds unprotected computers really fast. Pretty clever! But not >>> clever enough to fool me. lol >> >> Was this -directly- connected to the net, or via a ADSL/Router NAT >> unit like a lot of people now use?.. > >Hi Tony! It was connected up by dial-up. If it had a router connected, >that never would have happened (well a correctly setup router anyway). >And the viruses were inert until the user rebooted the computer. Then >the viruses would install themselves and infect the system. > Indeed.. but surely these days would anyone connect -directly- to the net?. Seeing that wireless routers with inbuilt NAT seem to be all the rage these days?.. -- Tony Sayer |