Critical Updates - Reliability

I understand that in the past, delivery of Service Packs were prone to
bugs and could cause more problems than they solved.

Is it safe to assume that the critical update process has improved
considerably from that?

How are Critical Updates different from Service Packs?

I'm asking this because my bosses are very tentative of the Critical
Updates, since they were burned by Service Packs in the past. My
feeling is that we should always have confidence in the integrity of
the critical updates.

Can anyone point me at anything written down by Microsoft that
guarantees the reliability of Critical Updates as they become
available? Also, any pointers to best practices documentation for
preparing for Critical Updates would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks

Critical updates are fixes to the Security and Windows Operating System that is not included in Service packs. They are posted from time to time to fix newer security and operating issues that crop up. These new critical Updates will always be included in a Service Pack on a later release. For example when SP2 came out and any security issues that crop up after the release of SP1 will be included in the next (do not ask when) service pack which will be named SP3

I hope I explained myself properly

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"no-reply" <> wrote in message news: ups.com...
>I understand that in the past, delivery of Service Packs were prone to
> bugs and could cause more problems than they solved.
>
> Is it safe to assume that the critical update process has improved
> considerably from that?
>
> How are Critical Updates different from Service Packs?
>
> I'm asking this because my bosses are very tentative of the Critical
> Updates, since they were burned by Service Packs in the past. My
> feeling is that we should always have confidence in the integrity of
> the critical updates.
>
> Can anyone point me at anything written down by Microsoft that
> guarantees the reliability of Critical Updates as they become
> available? Also, any pointers to best practices documentation for
> preparing for Critical Updates would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>

"no-reply" <> schreef in bericht
news: ups.com...
> I understand that in the past, delivery of Service Packs were prone to
> bugs and could cause more problems than they solved.
>
> Is it safe to assume that the critical update process has improved
> considerably from that?
>
> How are Critical Updates different from Service Packs?
>
> I'm asking this because my bosses are very tentative of the Critical
> Updates, since they were burned by Service Packs in the past. My
> feeling is that we should always have confidence in the integrity of
> the critical updates.


I'm sure that everyone at MSFT tries to deliver the best code
they can write.



> Can anyone point me at anything written down by Microsoft that
> guarantees the reliability of Critical Updates as they become
> available?


You might read the Liability Waivers, from most software houses incl MSFT:

"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES.
MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SECURITY,
RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE".


But as they point out, there is no warranty whatsoever.

And we have to agree to it when we install the software or update.

If your bosses want a guarantee of reliability before installing anything,
there will never be anything of any kind installed on any computer under
their control.
There are to many variables with a great many completely outside of
Microsoft's and the computer manufacturers control.

A well maintained computer free of viruses, spyware and other malware is the
best condition before installing anything especially a Service pack.

Also see:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"no-reply" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I understand that in the past, delivery of Service Packs were prone to
> bugs and could cause more problems than they solved.
>
> Is it safe to assume that the critical update process has improved
> considerably from that?
>
> How are Critical Updates different from Service Packs?
>
> I'm asking this because my bosses are very tentative of the Critical
> Updates, since they were burned by Service Packs in the past. My
> feeling is that we should always have confidence in the integrity of
> the critical updates.
>
> Can anyone point me at anything written down by Microsoft that
> guarantees the reliability of Critical Updates as they become
> available? Also, any pointers to best practices documentation for
> preparing for Critical Updates would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks

I do realise these disclaimers are intended to prevent litigation,
but software writers do take it one step to far:

"TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES.
xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SECURITY,
RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE".

Imagine buying a complex piece of equipment (eg a car with lots of software
controlled devices) where
the "EULA" states that
"the manufacurer of this car disclaims ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SECURITY,
RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE car"

We would all stop driving cars

However, I do realise every piece of softw comes with this kind of disclaimer.

Well, not all software.


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> schreef in bericht
news:...
> If your bosses want a guarantee of reliability before installing anything,
> there will never be anything of any kind installed on any computer under
> their control.
> There are to many variables with a great many completely outside of
> Microsoft's and the computer manufacturers control.
>
> A well maintained computer free of viruses, spyware and other malware is the
> best condition before installing anything especially a Service pack.
>
> Also see:
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "no-reply" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
> >I understand that in the past, delivery of Service Packs were prone to
> > bugs and could cause more problems than they solved.
> >
> > Is it safe to assume that the critical update process has improved
> > considerably from that?
> >
> > How are Critical Updates different from Service Packs?
> >
> > I'm asking this because my bosses are very tentative of the Critical
> > Updates, since they were burned by Service Packs in the past. My
> > feeling is that we should always have confidence in the integrity of
> > the critical updates.
> >
> > Can anyone point me at anything written down by Microsoft that
> > guarantees the reliability of Critical Updates as they become
> > available? Also, any pointers to best practices documentation for
> > preparing for Critical Updates would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
>
>

There is a big difference it your car example.
Everything is provided by one manufacturer in your example.

In the case of the computer, there are many suppliers of the software and
hardware components.
None of them have any control on additional changes made by the users.
The closest you get to your car example is a computer system supplied by an
OEM such as Gateway or Dell.
But then once you start installing your own hardware and software from
various manufacturers the configuration has changed from original.
It is normal during troubleshooting for you to change something back to
original configuration before the OEM can properly assist you.

Some of those disclaimers may not be necessary if the user mad no other
changes from original configuration at all.
But what good would that be?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Dutch User" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I do realise these disclaimers are intended to prevent litigation,
> but software writers do take it one step to far:
>
> "TO THE MAXIMUM
> EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL
> OTHER
> WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO,
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
> TITLE, AND
> NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT
> SERVICES.
> xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SECURITY,
> RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE".
>
> Imagine buying a complex piece of equipment (eg a car with lots of
> software
> controlled devices) where
> the "EULA" states that
> "the manufacurer of this car disclaims ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE
> SECURITY,
> RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE car"
>
> We would all stop driving cars
>
> However, I do realise every piece of softw comes with this kind of
> disclaimer.
>
> Well, not all software.
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> schreef in bericht
> news:...
>> If your bosses want a guarantee of reliability before installing
>> anything,
>> there will never be anything of any kind installed on any computer under
>> their control.
>> There are to many variables with a great many completely outside of
>> Microsoft's and the computer manufacturers control.
>>
>> A well maintained computer free of viruses, spyware and other malware is
>> the
>> best condition before installing anything especially a Service pack.
>>
>> Also see:
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
>> http://www.dts-l.org

You have a valid point.

Basically I aggree that an OS developer cannot take responsability
for the myriad of programmes/hardware that is being deployed.

Still, I alway feel uneasy when a critical update arrives -
I've learned the hard way that a full system back-up can be vital
before installing any updates.

Anyway, the disclaimers point to a simple fact:
a "perfect" OS does not exist - otherwise there would not be a WU


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> schreef in bericht
news:%...
> There is a big difference it your car example.
> Everything is provided by one manufacturer in your example.
>
> In the case of the computer, there are many suppliers of the software and
> hardware components.
> None of them have any control on additional changes made by the users.
> The closest you get to your car example is a computer system supplied by an
> OEM such as Gateway or Dell.
> But then once you start installing your own hardware and software from
> various manufacturers the configuration has changed from original.
> It is normal during troubleshooting for you to change something back to
> original configuration before the OEM can properly assist you.
>
> Some of those disclaimers may not be necessary if the user mad no other
> changes from original configuration at all.
> But what good would that be?
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Dutch User" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >I do realise these disclaimers are intended to prevent litigation,
> > but software writers do take it one step to far:
> >
> > "TO THE MAXIMUM
> > EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL
> > OTHER
> > WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> > LIMITED TO,
> > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
> > TITLE, AND
> > NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT
> > SERVICES.
> > xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SECURITY,
> > RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE".
> >
> > Imagine buying a complex piece of equipment (eg a car with lots of
> > software
> > controlled devices) where
> > the "EULA" states that
> > "the manufacurer of this car disclaims ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE
> > SECURITY,
> > RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE car"
> >
> > We would all stop driving cars
> >
> > However, I do realise every piece of softw comes with this kind of
> > disclaimer.
> >
> > Well, not all software.
> >
> >
> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> schreef in bericht
> > news:...
> >> If your bosses want a guarantee of reliability before installing
> >> anything,
> >> there will never be anything of any kind installed on any computer under
> >> their control.
> >> There are to many variables with a great many completely outside of
> >> Microsoft's and the computer manufacturers control.
> >>
> >> A well maintained computer free of viruses, spyware and other malware is
> >> the
> >> best condition before installing anything especially a Service pack.
> >>
> >> Also see:
> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> >> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
> >> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>

It is always a good idea to have current backups of all important data.
Windows Update problems is only one of the many things that can cause data
loss.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Dutch User" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You have a valid point.
>
> Basically I aggree that an OS developer cannot take responsability
> for the myriad of programmes/hardware that is being deployed.
>
> Still, I alway feel uneasy when a critical update arrives -
> I've learned the hard way that a full system back-up can be vital
> before installing any updates.
>
> Anyway, the disclaimers point to a simple fact:
> a "perfect" OS does not exist - otherwise there would not be a WU
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> schreef in bericht
> news:%...
>> There is a big difference it your car example.
>> Everything is provided by one manufacturer in your example.
>>
>> In the case of the computer, there are many suppliers of the software and
>> hardware components.
>> None of them have any control on additional changes made by the users.
>> The closest you get to your car example is a computer system supplied by
>> an
>> OEM such as Gateway or Dell.
>> But then once you start installing your own hardware and software from
>> various manufacturers the configuration has changed from original.
>> It is normal during troubleshooting for you to change something back to
>> original configuration before the OEM can properly assist you.
>>
>> Some of those disclaimers may not be necessary if the user mad no other
>> changes from original configuration at all.
>> But what good would that be?
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
>> http://www.dts-l.org
>>
>>
>> "Dutch User" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>> >I do realise these disclaimers are intended to prevent litigation,
>> > but software writers do take it one step to far:
>> >
>> > "TO THE MAXIMUM
>> > EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL
>> > OTHER
>> > WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT
>> > NOT
>> > LIMITED TO,
>> > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>> > PURPOSE,
>> > TITLE, AND
>> > NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT
>> > SERVICES.
>> > xx AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SECURITY,
>> > RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE".
>> >
>> > Imagine buying a complex piece of equipment (eg a car with lots of
>> > software
>> > controlled devices) where
>> > the "EULA" states that
>> > "the manufacurer of this car disclaims ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE
>> > SECURITY,
>> > RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE car"
>> >
>> > We would all stop driving cars
>> >
>> > However, I do realise every piece of softw comes with this kind of
>> > disclaimer.
>> >
>> > Well, not all software.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> schreef in bericht
>> > news:...
>> >> If your bosses want a guarantee of reliability before installing
>> >> anything,
>> >> there will never be anything of any kind installed on any computer
>> >> under
>> >> their control.
>> >> There are to many variables with a great many completely outside of
>> >> Microsoft's and the computer manufacturers control.
>> >>
>> >> A well maintained computer free of viruses, spyware and other malware
>> >> is
>> >> the
>> >> best condition before installing anything especially a Service pack.
>> >>
>> >> Also see:
>> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>> >> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
>> >> http://www.dts-l.org
>>
>>
>