Could Microsoft stop being disruptive?

I find that Microsoft has slowly become a monster doctor who has very noble
intentions of protecting his patient from all the infections around and
keeps pushing needles and pills into his patient to ward off all the evils.
After installing SP3, at the time of several shut-down occasions, I have
seen XP asking me not to shut down the computer since XP was installing no 1
of some 25 upgrades and advising me that the computer will shut down by
itself. It never asked me if I wanted any of those upgrades to be installed.

I prefer a doctor who tells me how a particular infection enters human body
( through breathing, eating, drinking, touching etc) and lets me think and
decide if I am likely to be a victim of that type of contact with an
infected person.

With indiscriminate addition of upgrades, not only does the system get
bloated and slowed down but

I E8 starts taking the law into its own hands and deciding which site I can
log-in and which I cannot or closing down for security reasons a web-page
which has been regularly used without any infection problem for years .

When Microsoft finds the need to take such disruptive actions while the user’s
work is in progress, it would be educational if Microsoft first tells the
user what kind of a threat is being posed to his system by a web-page or a
pop-up or a particular type of tag, or a rogue host or a data executing
program. It does not. It just autocratically takes whatever action its own
rule-book has laid down, never mind how it disrupts the work of a user who
may have used some of those several times with I E6.



P. Jayant

Maybe closing down the newsgroup is not such a bad idea.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

P. Jayant wrote:
> I find that Microsoft has slowly become a monster doctor who has very noble
> intentions of protecting his patient from all the infections around and
> keeps pushing needles and pills into his patient to ward off all the evils.
> After installing SP3, at the time of several shut-down occasions, I have
> seen XP asking me not to shut down the computer since XP was installing no 1
> of some 25 upgrades and advising me that the computer will shut down by
> itself. It never asked me if I wanted any of those upgrades to be installed.
>
> I prefer a doctor who tells me how a particular infection enters human body
> ( through breathing, eating, drinking, touching etc) and lets me think and
> decide if I am likely to be a victim of that type of contact with an
> infected person.
>
> With indiscriminate addition of upgrades, not only does the system get
> bloated and slowed down but
>
> I E8 starts taking the law into its own hands and deciding which site I can
> log-in and which I cannot or closing down for security reasons a web-page
> which has been regularly used without any infection problem for years .
>
> When Microsoft finds the need to take such disruptive actions while the user’s
> work is in progress, it would be educational if Microsoft first tells the
> user what kind of a threat is being posed to his system by a web-page or a
> pop-up or a particular type of tag, or a rogue host or a data executing
> program. It does not. It just autocratically takes whatever action its own
> rule-book has laid down, never mind how it disrupts the work of a user who
> may have used some of those several times with I E6.
>
>
>
> P. Jayant
>
>

1. You might RTFM. Start with...

• Microsoft Update Product Team Blog: Windows Update and Automatic
Reboots
http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...c-reboots.aspx

• How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525

2. Why did your computer need SP3 and 25 other updates installed?

3. From your headers: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843. Why is the
computer still not fully patched?

4a. Your recent post in a thread you'd hijacked:
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...61c2a07a675314

4b. My reply to same:
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...2cf5aadd038302


P. Jayant wrote:
> I find that Microsoft has slowly become a monster doctor who has very
> noble
> intentions of protecting his patient from all the infections around and
> keeps pushing needles and pills into his patient to ward off all the
> evils.
> After installing SP3, at the time of several shut-down occasions, I have
> seen XP asking me not to shut down the computer since XP was installing no
> 1
> of some 25 upgrades and advising me that the computer will shut down by
> itself. It never asked me if I wanted any of those upgrades to be
> installed.
>
> I prefer a doctor who tells me how a particular infection enters human
> body
> ( through breathing, eating, drinking, touching etc) and lets me think and
> decide if I am likely to be a victim of that type of contact with an
> infected person.
>
> With indiscriminate addition of upgrades, not only does the system get
> bloated and slowed down but
>
> I E8 starts taking the law into its own hands and deciding which site I
> can
> log-in and which I cannot or closing down for security reasons a web-page
> which has been regularly used without any infection problem for years .
>
> When Microsoft finds the need to take such disruptive actions while the
> user’s work is in progress, it would be educational if Microsoft first
> tells the user what kind of a threat is being posed to his system by a
> web-page or a pop-up or a particular type of tag, or a rogue host or a
> data
> executing program. It does not. It just autocratically takes whatever
> action its own rule-book has laid down, never mind how it disrupts the
> work
> of a user who may have used some of those several times with I E6.

P. Jayant wrote:

<snipped out all the childish ranting>

> After installing SP3, at the time of several shut-down occasions, I have
> seen XP asking me not to shut down the computer since XP was installing no 1
> of some 25 upgrades and advising me that the computer will shut down by
> itself.

You can configure the Automatic Updates service in Windows to
automatically download and update, or download and notify (but not
install anything), or to just notify you (no download and no update).
It's your choice whether or not you let someone else's alter the state
of your host with automatic updates. This is true not just of Windows
but every program you install that includes an auto-update function.
YOU decided to be the administrator of your own host so YOU get to
configure the software how you want.

> I E8 starts taking the law into its own hands and deciding which site I can
> log-in and which I cannot or closing down for security reasons a web-page
> which has been regularly used without any infection problem for years .

You thought that tirade had sufficient details that anyone would know
where you are trying to login that has problems?

Also, the web page presented showing you that a site may be hazardous is
just a warning. You can still elect to ignore the warning and visit the
site. Or you could simply configure IE8 to not use the SmartScreen
filter. Again, it's up to you but then you lack the initiative to ask
for help but prefer to rant without doing any research.

<snipped more childish ranting>

Well, when Microsoft gets around to dropping this newsgroup from their
NNTP server along with their attempt to usurp Usenet with their awful
webnews-for-boobs interface then we won't have to bother with these type
of posters anymore in Usenet. Looks like Microsoft is doing Usenet a
favor and secluding these posters inside their wonderful web-based
forums. Hurrah!

Reading of the notes on security and other updates placed on Microsoft’s
web-site is fine. But most of them are written in such technicalese that
except for the flag-bearers of MS and the defenders of the faith, they are
difficult for the lay user to understand. To be honest, I read meticulously
all of them but most of it goes over my head.

And even if my understanding of the notes was much higher, it is not
possible to connect the exact diagnosis mentioned in some note with the
sudden flash from Microsoft the Almighty striking down my request to open a
web-page for some vague reason of security.

It would be so much more satisfying if I was first told,

“son, I know you have opened this page several times before. But now the
same web-page has been enriched with an animation which uses an ActiveX
Control technique which will be saved on your computer in a Temporary
Internet File, if you open the page. It can then be used by the party who
has placed that animation on the web-page to plant a spyware or a malware on
your computer which will enable the advertiser to steal data from your
computer and later take charge of your computer to spread the malware to
many other computers.”

Or whatever the technical explanation may be. Oh, Microsoft Almighty! Could
you guide your ignorant users in an understandable language when a user is
about to make a mistake rather than provide hundreds of Knowledge Base notes
which are fine for the experts?

Several users, have migrated from I E8 to Mozilla Firefox which does not
issue updates by the dozen or expect users to read Knowledge Base notes to
protect their computers. Nor are there any complaints about web-pages cannot
be opened or being arbitrarily closed down from Firefox users.

Why are the complaints only foe the I E7 and the I E8 Browsers?



P. Jayant

"P. Jayant" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> Reading of the notes on security and other updates placed on Microsoft's
> web-site is fine. But most of them are written in such technicalese that
> except for the flag-bearers of MS and the defenders of the faith, they are
> difficult for the lay user to understand. To be honest, I read
> meticulously all of them but most of it goes over my head.
>
> And even if my understanding of the notes was much higher, it is not
> possible to connect the exact diagnosis mentioned in some note with the
> sudden flash from Microsoft the Almighty striking down my request to open
> a web-page for some vague reason of security.
>
> It would be so much more satisfying if I was first told,
>
> "son, I know you have opened this page several times before. But now the
> same web-page has been enriched with an animation which uses an ActiveX
> Control technique which will be saved on your computer in a Temporary
> Internet File, if you open the page. It can then be used by the party who
> has placed that animation on the web-page to plant a spyware or a malware
> on your computer which will enable the advertiser to steal data from your
> computer and later take charge of your computer to spread the malware to
> many other computers."
>
> Or whatever the technical explanation may be. Oh, Microsoft Almighty!
> Could you guide your ignorant users in an understandable language when a
> user is about to make a mistake rather than provide hundreds of Knowledge
> Base notes which are fine for the experts?
>
> Several users, have migrated from I E8 to Mozilla Firefox which does not
> issue updates by the dozen or expect users to read Knowledge Base notes to
> protect their computers. Nor are there any complaints about web-pages
> cannot be opened or being arbitrarily closed down from Firefox users.
>
> Why are the complaints only foe the I E7 and the I E8 Browsers?

There are no complaints about Firefox in here because this is not a Firefox
group. There are complaints about IE7 and IE8 because this *is* an IE
group - and as usual the people without complaints don't need to post :P

As to FF not releasing lots of updates, I guess you have automatic updates
disabled. Almost every time I open FF (I use it for testing every few weeks)
I get prompts to install updates. Take a look at the FF3.5 releases for
instance - there was an update almost every month.

Note that most problems with IE are related to incompatible add-ons - maybe
MS should take a leaf out of FF's book and just disable all add-ons when
it's upgraded and force users to track down newer versions of those add-ons
just in case they don't work properly. But I bet if they do this then the
support forums will be full of people complaining that IE won't let them use
the add-ons they used in the previous version of IE even though there is
nothing wrong with it; Firefox has a different type of user to IE, they tend
to be more technically proficient and as such rarely complain about things.
It doesn't mean that FF is any better than IE though - it just means that
you're looking in the wrong places for the complainers :P

--
Dan

In news:%,
P. Jayant <> typed:
> Reading of the notes on security and other updates placed
> on Microsofts web-site is fine. But most of them are
> written in such technicalese that except for the
> flag-bearers of MS and the defenders of the faith, they are
> difficult for the lay user to understand. To be honest, I
> read meticulously all of them but most of it goes over my
> head.
> And even if my understanding of the notes was much higher,
> it is not possible to connect the exact diagnosis mentioned
> in some note with the sudden flash from Microsoft the
> Almighty striking down my request to open a web-page for
> some vague reason of security.

The prededing makes no sense and sounds more like sour grapes than anything
else. A little attention to the syntax used and what ti means would go a
long ways for you. I just put a couple MS articles through a checker and
they're written for a ninth grade reading level according to that program.
When you don't know what something means, look it up; help yourself a
little.
>
> It would be so much more satisfying if I was first told,
>
> son, I know you have opened this page several times
> before. But now the same web-page has been enriched with an
> animation which uses an ActiveX Control technique which
> will be saved on your computer in a Temporary Internet
> File, if you open the page.

It is the author of the web sites causing those issues, not MS. Also almost
all of those notices can be cutomized on a site by site basis if you want to
get rid of it for important web pages. Or, turn the feature completely OFF
if you don't want to be bothered by such things. Most anyone here can answer
questions on the howto if you need it.

It can then be used by the
> party who has placed that animation on the web-page to
> plant a spyware or a malware on your computer which will
> enable the advertiser to steal data from your computer and
> later take charge of your computer to spread the malware to
> many other computers.

Sour grapes again. Go to a black site, you're going to get black hat
activity. It isn't active-X that downloads the problems; it's the USER who
downloads things without knowing whether the site is safe or not. There are
so many good sites out there it's just not necessary to use the junk sites.

>
> Or whatever the technical explanation may be. Oh, Microsoft
> Almighty! Could you guide your ignorant users in an
> understandable language when a user is about to make a
> mistake rather than provide hundreds of Knowledge Base
> notes which are fine for the experts?

Try MAC, or move to Linux, and you'll shortly be back for Microsoft I'll
bet. If you don't like a company, do not use their products. No one is
forcing you to use MS products.
>
> Several users, have migrated from I E8 to Mozilla Firefox
> which does not issue updates by the dozen or expect users
> to read Knowledge Base notes to protect their computers.
> Nor are there any complaints about web-pages cannot be
> opened or being arbitrarily closed down from Firefox users.

And several have migrated to Opera and many others, too. But IE8 is finally
what IE should have been all along. Firefox is OK but not as flexible, and
this isn't a FF group, so you're not going to see much FF talk here. I use a
total of 4 differente browsers, depending on what I'm doing, with IE8 and FF
getting the most use. Each has its advantages/disadvantages. When you
consider the size of the installed bases of IE and FF, FF has such a small
part of the overall market (not minimal, but small, stll) that the scammers
naturally use IE for its larger installed base. Should they change places,
then you'd see a lot more going on with FF and not as much with IE.
Criminals go where the largest market is.

>
> Why are the complaints only foe the I E7 and the I E8
> Browsers?

Because this is NOT an FF newsgroup: Check the NAME again; see where you're
posting. Go to the FF groups and you'll notice IE isn't often mentioned
there, just as FF isn't often mentioned here.

As I said before, if you don't like one company's products, don't use them.
Go somewhere else.

HTH,

Twayne`

>
>
> P. Jayant

"P. Jayant" <> wrote in
news::

>
>
> I find that Microsoft has slowly become a monster doctor who has very
> noble intentions of protecting his patient from all the infections
> around and keeps pushing needles and pills into his patient to ward off
> all the evils. After installing SP3, at the time of several shut-down
> occasions, I have seen XP asking me not to shut down the computer since
> XP was installing no 1 of some 25 upgrades and advising me that the
> computer will shut down by itself. It never asked me if I wanted any of
> those upgrades to be installed.
>
> I prefer a doctor who tells me how a particular infection enters human
> body ( through breathing, eating, drinking, touching etc) and lets me
> think and decide if I am likely to be a victim of that type of contact
> with an infected person.
>
> With indiscriminate addition of upgrades, not only does the system get
> bloated and slowed down but
>
> I E8 starts taking the law into its own hands and deciding which site I
> can log-in and which I cannot or closing down for security reasons a
> web-page which has been regularly used without any infection problem for
> years .
>
> When Microsoft finds the need to take such disruptive actions while the
> user’s work is in progress, it would be educational if Microsoft first
> tells the user what kind of a threat is being posed to his system by a
> web-page or a pop-up or a particular type of tag, or a rogue host or a
> data executing program. It does not. It just autocratically takes
> whatever action its own rule-book has laid down, never mind how it
> disrupts the work of a user who may have used some of those several
> times with I E6.

Microsoft enables automatic updates as the default as many users do not regularily update their systems. If
you know what you are doing this can be changed to be manual and all updates have links to the KB articles
that discuss the updates in detail.

"Dan" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> There are no complaints about Firefox in here because this is not a
> Firefox group. There are complaints about IE7 and IE8 because this *is* an
> IE group - and as usual the people without complaints don't need to post
> :P
>
> As to FF not releasing lots of updates, I guess you have automatic updates
> disabled. Almost every time I open FF (I use it for testing every few
> weeks) I get prompts to install updates. Take a look at the FF3.5 releases
> for instance - there was an update almost every month.
>
> Note that most problems with IE are related to incompatible add-ons -
> maybe MS should take a leaf out of FF's book and just disable all add-ons
> when it's upgraded and force users to track down newer versions of those
> add-ons just in case they don't work properly. But I bet if they do this
> then the support forums will be full of people complaining that IE won't
> let them use the add-ons they used in the previous version of IE even
> though there is nothing wrong with it; Firefox has a different type of
> user to IE, they tend to be more technically proficient and as such rarely
> complain about things. It doesn't mean that FF is any better than IE
> though - it just means that you're looking in the wrong places for the
> complainers :P
>

Excellent reply!