The Arcive of Official vBulletin Modifications Site.It is not a VB3 engine, just a parsed copy! |
|
|
#42
08-30-2004, 08:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
After all, how many times has Microsoft's updates caused more problems than it solved?  In my opinion, the users who enable Automatic Updates are the ones who aren't being too smart...
|
|
#43
08-30-2004, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm running SP2 with no problems and with background downloads and installs enabled. I have absolutely never had any item in Windows Update hose my computer, and if it ever did, I have System Restore to which to revert. The debate is pointless since it is a matter of opinion, anyway. |
|
#44
08-30-2004, 09:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is a known fact that Microsoft has released patches in the past that have caused more problems than they solved. Users who updated automatically got hosed first, while those who were smart enough to wait and stay informed got the revised version and had smooth runnings. And while SP2 might be working fine for you - it has caused no end of headaches for others. SP2 is acknowledged by anyone competant as an update that should be installed *deliberately* and under full knowledge of what you're doing. There are a lot of people out there who installed SP2 reflexively as soon as it came out. Do you know what many of them have in common? They're saying "Hey! Why isn't this program working!" As for System Restore - that's a joke. System Restore rarely works as advertised. It is good for one thing, and one thing only - if your machine should become nonfunctional, System Restore has a good chance of reverting it to a functional state, at which point the best thing you can do is to backup your data and overhaul your machine. You could, of course, take your chances and keep things running - but most of the time you'll find that things are not quite as they should be. And Microsoft is not the only company to fall under this category. The fact of the matter is that first releases of apps or updates are often buggy. How long did it take for vB 3.0.2 to jump to 3.0.3, hmm? Users who are set to automatically update invariably become no small portion of the guinea pigs upon which the rest of the world tests these first versions. This is not opinion - this is fact. I've worked professionally with IT for almost two decades. While you may be fortunate enough to not have had any serious issues, I personally am acquainted with thousands of users who were not so fortunate. They learned their lesson the hard way. I hope for your sake, that you don't learn in the same fashion as they did. |
|
#45
08-30-2004, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Personal experience and making factual statements are two different issues. When making such posts, it would be more courteous to specifically state that you are making an opinion, not posting facts without statistical backup. |
|
#46
08-30-2004, 11:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you want to point out a release of vB quickly followed by another due to bugs, 2.3.1 -> 2.3.2 is a better example. |
|
#47
08-30-2004, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#49
08-31-2004, 02:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://news.com.com/2100-1002-993515.html?tag=fd_top A patch for a security flaw that affects Microsoft's Web server software running on Windows 2000 has caused system freezes for some customers, the company said Thursday. The company became aware of the problem after several customers who applied the patch, released Monday, complained that their updated Windows 2000 system wouldn't run, said Iain Mulholland, program manager for the Microsoft Security Response Center. The problematic patch is not the first black eye that Microsoft has received in fixing a bug. Nearly two years ago, the software giant had to release a fix for its Exchange groupware server three times to get the update right. IE Cumulative Update Is Messy http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/In...rticleID=38372 Microsoft released a security rollup for all versions of Internet Explorer (IE) on February 5; then, on February 12, the company released a hotfix that corrects an IE 6.0 authentication flaw the rollup introduces. Microsoft SSL patch creating SSLowdowns http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/...ftpatch_1.html Some systems that use the security update, MS04-011, stop responding when they start up, prevent users from logging on to Windows, or bog down, Microsoft said in an article published Wednesday in its Knowledge Base online help database. Since releasing the patch, Microsoft has encouraged customers to apply the it as soon as possible. However, now it appears that the patch comes with its own problems. Microsoft's Knowledge Base article said that a software change in the patch causes Windows 2000 systems to repeatedly try to load drivers that cannot load successfully, causing the hangups. (See: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;841382.) The Redmond, Washington, company listed three software drivers that, if installed, make Windows 2000 systems susceptible to the slowdowns. The Knowledge Base article also described specific problems and a work-around procedure for Windows systems that have Nortel Networks' virtual private network client installed. Faulty patches are a frequent source of concern for Microsoft, which encourages its customers to install security patches as soon as possible to protect Windows systems from attack. Network administrators, on the other hand, are often reluctant to move quickly with software updates, fearing that, once installed, they will break critical systems. Microsoft fixing another faulty patch http://www.tunexp.com/news/windows-story-114.html Microsoft Corp. acknowledged yesterday that a recent security patch is causing problems on machines running the Windows NT 4.0 operating system. Microsoft customers described a variety of problems immediately after downloading and installing the patch on vulnerable systems, including error messages and problems trying to log onto affected systems. RRAS allows remote users to securely connect to NT 4.0 systems over dial-up or broadband Internet connections. The incident is the latest example of a security patch gone awry. In April, Microsoft was forced to acknowledge and fix a problem with a patch for Windows XP that caused slowdowns on systems that applied the patch. Microsoft Exchange bug: Strike three? http://news.com.com/2100-1001-268296.html?legacy=cnet While Microsoft denied that it had received any reports of difficulties with its second patch for securing Exchange 2000 and 5.5, three system administrators have reported that the fix continues to hang their servers. "This is the same exact problem as the first patch," said Chuck Myntti, a system administrator at the University of Utah, who had to rebuild the mail server to rid it of the pesky patch. "I'm really frustrated with Microsoft." On Friday, the company pulled down the fix after several system administrators complained that newly patched exchange servers hung, leaving any inbound e-mail to pile up on external servers. The company also announced that the flaw not only affected Exchange 2000 but Exchange 5.5 as well. Microsoft posted the latest patch Saturday, but some system administrators are claiming that the software is still not working. "I worked with Microsoft (technical support) for three hours," said Trey Carr, manager of information systems for ZonaFinanciera.com, a trilingual financial news site. "Apparently, they are not done with this patch yet. They could not even get it to uninstall itself." ------------------------------------ You were saying? |
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 PM.