Understanding Microsoft Updates Is Hard For Me

Hi:

I sure experience a lot of frustration, in general, when trying to
decide whether or not to install optional updates offered to me at
the Microsoft Updates web site.

The main reason for this is the nonsensical descriptions which this
web site usually provides for these updates.

It is my unsolicited opinion that I am justified in my use of the
adjective "nonsensical" because I claim that the majority of
individuals who utilize that site are neither information
technologists or computer scientists.

I would like to know how an average home-user may determine whether
or not to install any particular optional update in the absence of
an explanation pertaining to necessity.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

For example, the Microsoft Update web site offers me the following:

Update for Microsoft Core XML Services (MSXML) 6.0 Service Pack 1
(KB934268) MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1 (MSXML6.1) has improved
reliability, security, conformance with the XML 1.0 and XML Schema
1.0 W3C Recommendations, and compatibility with System.Xml 2.0.
After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.
Details...

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

When I click on the "Details..." link, I am taken to this
information:

Update for Microsoft Core XML Services (MSXML) 6.0 Service Pack 1
(KB934268) Date last published: 4/24/2007 MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1
(MSXML6.1) has improved reliability, security, conformance with the
XML 1.0 and XML Schema 1.0 W3C Recommendations, and compatibility
with System.Xml 2.0. Recommended CPU: Not specified. Recommended
memory: Not specified. Recommended hard disk space: Not specified.
More information: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=87548

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

When I go to the web page at the above URL, I see this:

MSXML 6.0 SP1 is intended as an upgrade path for existing MSXML 6.0,
MSXML 3 and MSXML 4.

MSXML 6.0 SP1 will update the version of MSXML6.dll to 6.10.1129.0

MSXML 6.0 SP1 could also be installed without any previous versions
of MSXML 6.0 on the computer.

MSXML 6.0 SP1 will be installed side by side with MSXML 3 and MSXML
4

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

Microsoft's Knowledge-Base web site tells me that there is no
article with ID KB934268.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

I know of no way to determine whether or not I will benefit from
this update. Microsoft software errors currently waste sufficient
amounts of my personal time to preclude me from being able to
research issues related to cryptic updates.

Is anybody able to provide me with a method to determine when to
install an optional update that is offered without comprehensible
explanations?

Cheers,

~ Mark

Mark M Morse wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I sure experience a lot of frustration, in general, when trying to
> decide whether or not to install optional updates offered to me at the
> Microsoft Updates web site.
>
> The main reason for this is the nonsensical descriptions which this web
> site usually provides for these updates.
>
> It is my unsolicited opinion that I am justified in my use of the
> adjective "nonsensical" because I claim that the majority of individuals
> who utilize that site are neither information technologists or computer
> scientists.
>
> I would like to know how an average home-user may determine whether or
> not to install any particular optional update in the absence of an
> explanation pertaining to necessity.
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> For example, the Microsoft Update web site offers me the following:
>
> Update for Microsoft Core XML Services (MSXML) 6.0 Service Pack 1
> (KB934268) MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1 (MSXML6.1) has improved
> reliability, security, conformance with the XML 1.0 and XML Schema 1.0
> W3C Recommendations, and compatibility with System.Xml 2.0. After you
> install this item, you may have to restart your computer. Details...
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> When I click on the "Details..." link, I am taken to this information:
>
> Update for Microsoft Core XML Services (MSXML) 6.0 Service Pack 1
> (KB934268) Date last published: 4/24/2007 MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1
> (MSXML6.1) has improved reliability, security, conformance with the XML
> 1.0 and XML Schema 1.0 W3C Recommendations, and compatibility with
> System.Xml 2.0. Recommended CPU: Not specified. Recommended memory:
> Not specified. Recommended hard disk space: Not specified. More
> information: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=87548
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> When I go to the web page at the above URL, I see this:
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 is intended as an upgrade path for existing MSXML 6.0,
> MSXML 3 and MSXML 4.
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 will update the version of MSXML6.dll to 6.10.1129.0
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 could also be installed without any previous versions of
> MSXML 6.0 on the computer.
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 will be installed side by side with MSXML 3 and MSXML 4
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> Microsoft's Knowledge-Base web site tells me that there is no article
> with ID KB934268.
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> I know of no way to determine whether or not I will benefit from this
> update. Microsoft software errors currently waste sufficient amounts of
> my personal time to preclude me from being able to research issues
> related to cryptic updates.
>
> Is anybody able to provide me with a method to determine when to install
> an optional update that is offered without comprehensible explanations?
>
> Cheers,
>
> ~ Mark
>
>
>
>
This doesn't answer your question, but I suspect such frustrations -- as
mine with KB934238, which hosed my HP printer settings -- have led to
the increase in Macintosh penetration of the market from 3% to 5% in the
past year. The summary explanation for the KB934238 update was pitiful.

Bill

An "average home-user" who doesn't understand what an update's Details (or
links in Details) is saying would probably do best by enabling Automatic
Updates and using the "automatic" setting, Mark.

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

How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327838
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org



Mark M Morse wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I sure experience a lot of frustration, in general, when trying to
> decide whether or not to install optional updates offered to me at
> the Microsoft Updates web site.
>
> The main reason for this is the nonsensical descriptions which this
> web site usually provides for these updates.
>
> It is my unsolicited opinion that I am justified in my use of the
> adjective "nonsensical" because I claim that the majority of
> individuals who utilize that site are neither information
> technologists or computer scientists.
>
> I would like to know how an average home-user may determine whether
> or not to install any particular optional update in the absence of
> an explanation pertaining to necessity.
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> For example, the Microsoft Update web site offers me the following:
>
> Update for Microsoft Core XML Services (MSXML) 6.0 Service Pack 1
> (KB934268) MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1 (MSXML6.1) has improved
> reliability, security, conformance with the XML 1.0 and XML Schema
> 1.0 W3C Recommendations, and compatibility with System.Xml 2.0.
> After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.
> Details...
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> When I click on the "Details..." link, I am taken to this
> information:
>
> Update for Microsoft Core XML Services (MSXML) 6.0 Service Pack 1
> (KB934268) Date last published: 4/24/2007 MSXML 6.0 Service Pack 1
> (MSXML6.1) has improved reliability, security, conformance with the
> XML 1.0 and XML Schema 1.0 W3C Recommendations, and compatibility
> with System.Xml 2.0. Recommended CPU: Not specified. Recommended
> memory: Not specified. Recommended hard disk space: Not specified.
> More information: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=87548
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> When I go to the web page at the above URL, I see this:
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 is intended as an upgrade path for existing MSXML 6.0,
> MSXML 3 and MSXML 4.
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 will update the version of MSXML6.dll to 6.10.1129.0
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 could also be installed without any previous versions
> of MSXML 6.0 on the computer.
>
> MSXML 6.0 SP1 will be installed side by side with MSXML 3 and MSXML
> 4
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> Microsoft's Knowledge-Base web site tells me that there is no
> article with ID KB934268.
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
> I know of no way to determine whether or not I will benefit from
> this update. Microsoft software errors currently waste sufficient
> amounts of my personal time to preclude me from being able to
> research issues related to cryptic updates.
>
> Is anybody able to provide me with a method to determine when to
> install an optional update that is offered without comprehensible
> explanations?
>
> Cheers,
>
> ~ Mark

Hi

Just my two cents worth. Telling a user to "turn on automatic
updates" isn't explaining what or what not the patch will be doing to
their computer. You are asking the "average home-user" to trust
Microsoft on blind faith that they will not install any viruses or
destroyer their computer is asking a lot from them. There have been
occasions where Microsoft has come back and said "Opps! Don't install
that last patch we issued, it screws up the computer but install this
one instead." Many professionals in the IT world know not to install
patches when they are first released into the wild. They usually wait
till a service pack comes out or a few months down the road after the
patch was released. Microsoft needs to hire some technical people who
can break down the jargon and tell the average computer user what
exactly is happening, why they need the patch, and what is all does.

Richard

On Apr 30, 12:15 pm, "PA Bear" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An "average home-user" who doesn't understand what an update's Details (or
> links in Details) is saying would probably do best by enabling Automatic
> Updates and using the "automatic" setting, Mark.
>
> How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525
>
> How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327838
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org

There is free (i.e., no cost) support from Microsoft available to /any/ user
who encountered a problem installing or after installing an update.

IMHO if a "typical home user" doesn't want to spend the time to /learn/, I
say it's better for them to trust MS than not install any updates.
--
~PA Bear


Richard wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just my two cents worth. Telling a user to "turn on automatic
> updates" isn't explaining what or what not the patch will be doing to
> their computer. You are asking the "average home-user" to trust
> Microsoft on blind faith that they will not install any viruses or
> destroyer their computer is asking a lot from them. There have been
> occasions where Microsoft has come back and said "Opps! Don't install
> that last patch we issued, it screws up the computer but install this
> one instead." Many professionals in the IT world know not to install
> patches when they are first released into the wild. They usually wait
> till a service pack comes out or a few months down the road after the
> patch was released. Microsoft needs to hire some technical people who
> can break down the jargon and tell the average computer user what
> exactly is happening, why they need the patch, and what is all does.
>
> Richard
>
> On Apr 30, 12:15 pm, "PA Bear" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An "average home-user" who doesn't understand what an update's Details
>> (or
>> links in Details) is saying would probably do best by enabling Automatic
>> Updates and using the "automatic" setting, Mark.
>>
>> How to configure and use Automatic Updates in
>> WinXP:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525
>>
>> How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and
>> Win2K03http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327838 --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org

PA Bear wrote:
> There is free (i.e., no cost) support from Microsoft available to /any/
> user who encountered a problem installing or after installing an update.
>
> IMHO if a "typical home user" doesn't want to spend the time to /learn/,
> I say it's better for them to trust MS than not install any updates.

MS needs to do a much better job to make sure that their updates don't
have unintended consequences. They should also look at whether or not
each update is "critical" as in some cases updates labeled as such as
not. When an update messes up my computer settings I don't consider it
"learning" to contact MS about the problem. Brian Livingston's Windows
Secrets newsletter is very helpful in this regard.

Bill

"Bill Sharpe" <> schrieb:

> MS needs to do a much better job to make sure that their updates don't
> have unintended consequences.

You simply can't test any side effects on every configuration (hardware
and software) _and_ release an update in a timely manner.

Bye,
Freudi

Bill Sharpe wrote:
> PA Bear wrote:
>> There is free (i.e., no cost) support from Microsoft available to /any/
>> user who encountered a problem installing or after installing an update.
>>
>> IMHO if a "typical home user" doesn't want to spend the time to /learn/,
>> I say it's better for them to trust MS than not install any updates.
>
> MS needs to do a much better job to make sure that their updates don't
> have unintended consequences. They should also look at whether or not
> each update is "critical" as in some cases updates labeled as such as not.
<snip>

What Freudi said. Extensive testing of each Windows Update /is/ done.
Could it be more extensive? Probably. Would more extensive testing resolve
the problems a (very) small minority of users encounter after installing an
update? Probably not. The only way to avoid /any/ problems is to not
install _anything_ new (including Windows Update) *and* never connect the
machine to the internet or any networks.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org

Ottmar Freudenberger wrote:
> "Bill Sharpe" <> schrieb:
>
>
>>MS needs to do a much better job to make sure that their updates don't
>>have unintended consequences.
>
>
> You simply can't test any side effects on every configuration (hardware
> and software) _and_ release an update in a timely manner.
>
> Bye,
> Freudi
HP printers are fairly common. You'd think MS might test _that_
configuration.

Bill

"Bill Sharpe" <> schrieb:
> Ottmar Freudenberger wrote:
>> "Bill Sharpe" <> schrieb:
>>
>>>MS needs to do a much better job to make sure that their updates don't
>>>have unintended consequences.
>
>> You simply can't test any side effects on every configuration (hardware
>> and software) _and_ release an update in a timely manner.

> HP printers are fairly common.

Which model, which driver, which ...

> You'd think MS might test _that_ configuration.

Which one of *a lot*?

Bye,
Freudi