Radical Overhaul

Let's face it, Windows Update with XP is pretty flaky, and the
Troubleshooting pages are out of date - they just repeat stuff about proxies
and firewalls etc. ad nauseum without addressing the bugs that we encounter.

It's time for a radical overhaul of Windows Update, and importantly, the
troubleshooting pages. I'd guess it needs at least five times the resource
currently devoted to it within Microsoft.

I never have problems with Windows Update..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"tonybb" <> wrote in message
news:F4235995-35C2-429D-8262-...
> Let's face it, Windows Update with XP is pretty flaky, and the
> Troubleshooting pages are out of date - they just repeat stuff about
> proxies
> and firewalls etc. ad nauseum without addressing the bugs that we
> encounter.
>
> It's time for a radical overhaul of Windows Update, and importantly, the
> troubleshooting pages. I'd guess it needs at least five times the
> resource
> currently devoted to it within Microsoft.

I have some machines that have nothing but trouble with update. There must
certainly be some bugs that only show up on certain installations. I have
other machines that work fine. This needs some looking into at MS and some
REAL answers. I believe tonybb is correct is saying the troubleshooting
pages are quite out of date.

"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:

> I never have problems with Windows Update..
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "tonybb" <> wrote in message
> news:F4235995-35C2-429D-8262-...
> > Let's face it, Windows Update with XP is pretty flaky, and the
> > Troubleshooting pages are out of date - they just repeat stuff about
> > proxies
> > and firewalls etc. ad nauseum without addressing the bugs that we
> > encounter.
> >
> > It's time for a radical overhaul of Windows Update, and importantly, the
> > troubleshooting pages. I'd guess it needs at least five times the
> > resource
> > currently devoted to it within Microsoft.
>
>
>

Some of the REAL answers remain with the end user who sometimes makes
changes without realising the full potential of what is being done..
Microsoft can't be held responsible for every configuration on every
machine..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"JR" <> wrote in message
news:BDC1C118-F545-4A6D-8ED8-...
>I have some machines that have nothing but trouble with update. There must
> certainly be some bugs that only show up on certain installations. I have
> other machines that work fine. This needs some looking into at MS and
> some
> REAL answers. I believe tonybb is correct is saying the troubleshooting
> pages are quite out of date.
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:
>
>> I never have problems with Windows Update..
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "tonybb" <> wrote in message
>> news:F4235995-35C2-429D-8262-...
>> > Let's face it, Windows Update with XP is pretty flaky, and the
>> > Troubleshooting pages are out of date - they just repeat stuff about
>> > proxies
>> > and firewalls etc. ad nauseum without addressing the bugs that we
>> > encounter.
>> >
>> > It's time for a radical overhaul of Windows Update, and importantly,
>> > the
>> > troubleshooting pages. I'd guess it needs at least five times the
>> > resource
>> > currently devoted to it within Microsoft.
>>
>>
>>

Well, I am happy for everyone who is NOT experiencing problems with this last
update. This is the very first time I have every had any problems with them.
Perhaps you will remain among the fortunate few Mike and not have to go
through the problems the rest of us are.

"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" wrote:

> I never have problems with Windows Update..
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "tonybb" <> wrote in message
> news:F4235995-35C2-429D-8262-...
> > Let's face it, Windows Update with XP is pretty flaky, and the
> > Troubleshooting pages are out of date - they just repeat stuff about
> > proxies
> > and firewalls etc. ad nauseum without addressing the bugs that we
> > encounter.
> >
> > It's time for a radical overhaul of Windows Update, and importantly, the
> > troubleshooting pages. I'd guess it needs at least five times the
> > resource
> > currently devoted to it within Microsoft.
>
>
>

There often is no responsibility.
Considering the total # of Windows XP computers in the world.
And that no 2 are identical.
It is amazing updates, drivers, programs etc can be made to function
appropriately on the different computers.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
news:Ot7gwS$...
> Some of the REAL answers remain with the end user who sometimes makes
> changes without realising the full potential of what is being done..
> Microsoft can't be held responsible for every configuration on every
> machine..
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

Jupiter

I would agree with you entirely, but I did use the word 'some'.. there are
more than a few regular posters in these newsgroups who insist on messing,
tweaking and generally worrying about little things that should be left well
alone.. some would rather believe those that spread myths and rumours,
acting on shaky advice.. some just won't listen at all..

Of all the people that I support or ever have supported, those who leave
stuff alone if it is not broken are the ones that have the most trouble free
computing experience.. for the others, it is a constant battle..

And for those in the post who are unhappy with WU, I understand that there
is a version 6 in the pipeline.. maybe this will address some of your
complaints.. but remember this.. if it works for the majority, then others
should be prepared to take some of the responsibility maybe for when it
doesn't..

I don't believe in luck..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> There often is no responsibility.
> Considering the total # of Windows XP computers in the world.
> And that no 2 are identical.
> It is amazing updates, drivers, programs etc can be made to function
> appropriately on the different computers.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
> news:Ot7gwS$...
>> Some of the REAL answers remain with the end user who sometimes makes
>> changes without realising the full potential of what is being done..
>> Microsoft can't be held responsible for every configuration on every
>> machine..
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>

Mike;
From What I understand the new version will update more than just Windows.
But I am sure it will not update 3rd party programs as I have seen suggested
by at least one poster.

I also do not believe in luck.
Those that believe in luck become dependant on luck and thus set themselves
up to fail.
Protecting a computer takes time and diligence...and no luck.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
news:%23$...
> Jupiter
>
> I would agree with you entirely, but I did use the word 'some'.. there are
> more than a few regular posters in these newsgroups who insist on messing,
> tweaking and generally worrying about little things that should be left
> well alone.. some would rather believe those that spread myths and
> rumours, acting on shaky advice.. some just won't listen at all..
>
> Of all the people that I support or ever have supported, those who leave
> stuff alone if it is not broken are the ones that have the most trouble
> free computing experience.. for the others, it is a constant battle..
>
> And for those in the post who are unhappy with WU, I understand that there
> is a version 6 in the pipeline.. maybe this will address some of your
> complaints.. but remember this.. if it works for the majority, then others
> should be prepared to take some of the responsibility maybe for when it
> doesn't..
>
> I don't believe in luck..
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> There often is no responsibility.
>> Considering the total # of Windows XP computers in the world.
>> And that no 2 are identical.
>> It is amazing updates, drivers, programs etc can be made to function
>> appropriately on the different computers.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
>> news:Ot7gwS$...
>>> Some of the REAL answers remain with the end user who sometimes makes
>>> changes without realising the full potential of what is being done..
>>> Microsoft can't be held responsible for every configuration on every
>>> machine..
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hall
>>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>>
>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

Let's hope that it doesn't.. MS takes enough hits updating 3rd party drivers
supplied by the 3rd parties..

For what it's worth, I always let WU do the NIC and audio drivers on both
home computers, and so far, only one crapped out.. it was an updated driver
for an Intel 536P modem.. I rolled back, installed the driver from the Intel
site and........... it crapped out.. reduced modem speed to that of a
1200baud.. everything else has been ok.. I guess that I have just
been................... um............. errrrr............. patient and
diligent (no luck required)..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Mike;
> From What I understand the new version will update more than just Windows.
> But I am sure it will not update 3rd party programs as I have seen
> suggested by at least one poster.
>
> I also do not believe in luck.
> Those that believe in luck become dependant on luck and thus set
> themselves up to fail.
> Protecting a computer takes time and diligence...and no luck.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
> news:%23$...
>> Jupiter
>>
>> I would agree with you entirely, but I did use the word 'some'.. there
>> are more than a few regular posters in these newsgroups who insist on
>> messing, tweaking and generally worrying about little things that should
>> be left well alone.. some would rather believe those that spread myths
>> and rumours, acting on shaky advice.. some just won't listen at all..
>>
>> Of all the people that I support or ever have supported, those who leave
>> stuff alone if it is not broken are the ones that have the most trouble
>> free computing experience.. for the others, it is a constant battle..
>>
>> And for those in the post who are unhappy with WU, I understand that
>> there is a version 6 in the pipeline.. maybe this will address some of
>> your complaints.. but remember this.. if it works for the majority, then
>> others should be prepared to take some of the responsibility maybe for
>> when it doesn't..
>>
>> I don't believe in luck..
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> There often is no responsibility.
>>> Considering the total # of Windows XP computers in the world.
>>> And that no 2 are identical.
>>> It is amazing updates, drivers, programs etc can be made to function
>>> appropriately on the different computers.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
>>> news:Ot7gwS$...
>>>> Some of the REAL answers remain with the end user who sometimes makes
>>>> changes without realising the full potential of what is being done..
>>>> Microsoft can't be held responsible for every configuration on every
>>>> machine..
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Hall
>>>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>>>
>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>

I'm here trying to figure why my modem ceased to function after installing
the latest updates (until I "restored " to before the updates). I have never
had problem with updates before. It is BITS related? (excuse my ignorance)

"da_test" wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:46:55 -0500, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Some of the REAL answers remain with the end user who sometimes makes
> >changes without realising the full potential of what is being done..
> >Microsoft can't be held responsible for every configuration on every
> >machine..
> I don't understand your thinking at all.
> IF AU is so important that MS has been practically
> shoving it down our throats, then they should have
> designed the system to be a little more robust and
> bullet proof than it appears to be.
>
> For example, some users may have inadvertantly disabled
> BITS. Then AU should have a self check built in.
> If BITS is disabled, it should tell you.
>
> It's called defensive programming, to try and deal with as many
> situations in the field as possible. It's a somewhat arrogant
> position to poo-poo it.
> Dave
>