Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Ryu Connor
potatochobit wrote:I had MSN previously installed in windows 7 and it asked me to update a few days ago
I believe this time it already had some of the other components checked for install even when I only had MSN on the computer before
on a side note, did you try and paste a youtube video in MSN while chatting with someone?
that's pretty cool feature, I like it
mikeymike wrote:If you don't need Silverlight for example, I would remove it
mattsteg wrote:mikeymike wrote:If you don't need Silverlight for example, I would remove it
Why bother?
Ryu Connor wrote:Looks like 300MB to me.
Well, it does if I add 750% to it.
Jypster wrote:While I agree with what you are saying in theory Mikeymike I honestly think that most customers are better off with their programs updated by default even if they dont use them or rarely use them. Net 4.0 may take a few minutes to update on a machine for the first time but after that well it is no real bother, same as office updates etc.
As for other bloatware like those horrible toolbar add-ins, yes I remove them everytime I see them but again most clients don't even notice these or really care.
The bigger culprit is 3rd party programs and services hogging resources. You can tell your clients about these but there is not much you can really do. You can disable and remove all the stuff but most like in a few months it will be all back again.
As someone used a dreaded car analogy I will use one as well.. sort off.. Do you know that when you replace your spark plugs if you fit them with the right orientation to the combustion chamber you will improve the burn spread and pick up a small amount of HP and fuel economy.. Is it worth it ? Maybe to some but most people dont notice or care.
mikeymike wrote:Not really...I've already said why twice in this thread
mikeymike wrote:s/again/at all ?I'm not going to bother saying it again.
mikeymike wrote:Have you confirmed that you've got Microsoft Update (not Windows Update) enabled?
Also, have you checked its memory usage when the computer starts up (though I would be surprised if it settled down that much, because I've never seen MS Update on XP do that)?
Jypster wrote:Well Mikeymike I'll agree to disagree on some of your comments while agreeing with others and leave it at that
BTW a mechanic is not going to give a toss about the sparkplugs that is a drag racing trick. Not worth their time when doing a service as time is money.
I only advised him to remove Siverlight and revert to Windows Update if he has no other dependencies on Microsoft Update.
How do I manually get these updates later? Any reccomendation how often?
That depends on what Microsoft products you use, Office being the tricky one as its update system of choice is Microsoft Update. You could temporarily enable Microsoft Update every so often (once a week/month?), pull down the latest Office updates, then disable Microsoft Update (note: this does not disable Windows Update).
If I have an XP box in at some point soon with a relevant config, I'll post a screenshot with regard to Microsoft Update's memory usage.
Ah, so now the objective is to somehow find a box that is not representative of the norm to shore up your view point that security is less important than RAM? Gotcha.
You claim that if I try to come up with evidence that it will be the exception rather than the rule, because it is my intention to lie to people, and you've automatically assumed that your evidence is definitive?
Ryu Connor wrote:You claim that if I try to come up with evidence that it will be the exception rather than the rule, because it is my intention to lie to people, and you've automatically assumed that your evidence is definitive?
Lie? No. Not know any better, want to save face, want to present what people want to hear? Maybe, maybe not.
Shining Knight? Eh. If this was a Linux forum and you were spouting fallacies you'd get crucified. It's hip to bash and say absurd things about Microsoft, so no one even bats an eye. This is supposed to be a place of information. If it's information that is harmless, but ultimately pointless - who cares. If it's weakening the security of the machine, I take that seriously. You're not surrounded by experts here and there's a bunch of people who think they're experts and don't come close.
That is perhaps the worst wiki and advice ever.
Don't let this read personal. Nothing against you 7im
What people ultimately think at the end of this? Don't care. Human nature is such that they'll follow your advice if you're saying what they want to hear. That you're wrong doesn't even matter. Doesn't mean I'm gonna sit passive. Could be worse, you could be talking about how you disable UAC for your customers. You think I'm "fired up" over messing with critical patching you should see what I have to say about disabling UAC.
And what do you think your angle is? Telling it like it is, I suppose? Have you considered that what you're saying might not be definitive?
Well, if you think I go around saying things because I think it would be hip or cool, you're mistaken, and there's not much I can add to that.
You talk about if this were Linux-orientated that I would get crucified, have you considered that your general argument tack is extremely blunt and based on the assumption that you cannot possibly be wrong?
Also, you didn't answer my previous question:
How exactly does Microsoft Update protect your machine any more than Windows Update if the only Microsoft software you're using is Windows?
Ryu Connor wrote:Text sucks. I also have a very direct writing style, which is weird to be honest. As I feel verbally I'm sure some people wish I'd disable the -v switch. I make no apologies for it. There are some other regulars on this forum who make me look like silk.
Also, you didn't answer my previous question:
How exactly does Microsoft Update protect your machine any more than Windows Update if the only Microsoft software you're using is Windows?
Because you don't know how things might change for the user in the future. Who is to even say you will remain their business choice for future IT support?
Who is to say what MS software will be supported by MS Update in the future?
Maybe something not presently supported by it now, will be. With security holes that crop up into MSN Messenger now and again I wish they'd add it. If MS adds software to it that your customer does use and was traditionally not supported, will they be covered? Will it somehow magically turn back on?
If the customer installs some other MS product - such as Excel Viewer. The office Viewers often have many of the same holes that the full programs in Office 2007 receive. Are you 100% sure the the disabling of MS Update will reverse? In all cases? Under all conditions? 100% error free? I don't know, I'd have to setup a new fresh XP box, install the viewer and see. Even if testing shows it works, is it worth the risk?
What if the customer had MS software that was covered and you missed it? You are human, you will err.
Then there are more problematic issues like teaching some random dude on a forum how to do it because he asked. You don't know him, I don't know him. He didn't know enough to cut it off to begin with, but you went ahead and handed him the loaded gun. Whose to say he'll be diligent? What if he just totally forgets and doens't patch it for months? What if he is diligent, but chooses a long period like once a month? He then gets hit by a very fast spreading new virus because it occured between his four week routine?
You can say, "That's unlikely". Whatever. Life is unlikely. You might drive out to the next job site tomorrow and get t-boned. You plan security based on unlikely. You don't plan based upon saving RAM.
zqw wrote:I know we're arguing philosophy at this point. But, in case I'm the one that's about to be botted:
This old box is used by the kids for games. It used to (almost) never go on the internet. Now it does every weekend or two (by me) for updates. The rest of the time it's running Spore, Civ4, etc. with an AGP card and two full DIMM slots. I'm not putting another single dollar into hardware there. I'd like to hold out for Sandy Bridge, but more likely they'll get a nice hand-me-down. Box #2 is a (slow) celeron fileserver + benefits: mirc and a few other windows only apps. I'm leaning toward continuing to ignore that one. EDIT: eg it's all auto-patch, and always in swap, and that's ok for my apps.
mikeymike wrote:Great, so there's someone worse than you, so that's ok then. If your blunt approach combined with your opinion on a topic turned out to be wrong, would you apologise for your attitude then? If so, why not just cut the attitude out to begin with? Have you considered that you might get your point across better without the attitude, and that people would be more receptive to what you're saying?
How is that relevant?
You may as well argue "what if Microsoft Update goes horribly wrong and loads of users' computers get compromised because of it?", because dealing in future "what ifs" is a pretty shaky argument when we're talking about something in the present day.
Actually, I don't think it does, but again you're taking a standpoint of future-based "what if"'s, because what if a user installs anything. If you want to go for this line though, what happens on a clean Windows install and a customer wants an office viewer program, and if I'm right, Microsoft Update doesn't get enabled (at least I don't think it does for 2003, not sure about 2007), damn, Microsoft isn't doing the right thing!
Have you ever given out any advice that carried any level of risk on a forum? Shame on you.
The way you've argued in this thread suggests that if a user has Microsoft Update enabled, they're protected against MS security vulnerabilities and that's that.
You ignored my point about the added security risk of the optional parts of WLE, you largely ignore my question about what extra protection does Microsoft Update ACTUALLY provide over Windows Update if no other Microsoft software is installed and instead tried to patch it up with "well, it might, you know, one day". Yes, it might grow into a phoenix one day and fly away, but I wouldn't count on it.
Ryu Connor wrote:The attitude is perceived, not real. Any time you challenge another human on details they tend to react negatively. That's only going to be doubly so when the topic of discussion is the quality of your work. Can't fix human nature. This is also a deflection and a distraction. It's not defending your technical malfeasance, it's just playing the victim card.
Always in motion is the future. It's relevant because if you leave them configured one way and someone else becomes the provider, it's not like you're leaving notes for them. They might assume that MS Update is actually on, which isn't a crazy assumption. Queue the Benny Hill theme from there as the comedy of assumptions manages to impact the customer.
This is practially as obnoxious as going in and changing their wallpaper, theme, or screensaver on the idea it's better for them.
Actually, I don't think it does, but again you're taking a standpoint of future-based "what if"'s, because what if a user installs anything. If you want to go for this line though, what happens on a clean Windows install and a customer wants an office viewer program, and if I'm right, Microsoft Update doesn't get enabled (at least I don't think it does for 2003, not sure about 2007), damn, Microsoft isn't doing the right thing!
You as the "IT Pro" are already one step behind the enemy. You have to work in what ifs. What if this network gets compromised. What protections do we have in place internally to minimize the damage? What can we do to futher minimize that damage?
What if this MS application gets installed? What if it needs a critical patch? What if it gets a zero day exploit and receives a critical out of band patch?
You're perfectly okay with those last three what ifs. Yet what if the customer installs something that needs MS update and your actions have left it disabled? Somehow that doesn't pass your muster and it's very intellectually dishonest.
Have you ever given out any advice that carried any level of risk on a forum? Shame on you.
Only in ignorance and someone not so gently illustrated my error.
The way you've argued in this thread suggests that if a user has Microsoft Update enabled, they're protected against MS security vulnerabilities and that's that.
Pretty much.
The real hilarity of all this is how goal posts got shifted a bit. After I stomped on the reality of the memory footprint of MS Update, you've been purposefully avoiding that.
Suddenly it's the fact that my justifcations aren't sufficient. Then there's the derision of what if, yet so many of your actions are already guided by what if. It's much easier to deride and attack the concept than it is to answer the fact that MS Update basically has no serious memory footprint impact over WU. Your original incorrect understanding of MS Updates behavior has lead you to screw up. If this for some reason this discussion actually continues (hopefully not). If you produce this magical 300MB MS Update, do be forewarned that I'm not an idiot and that I realize that SVCHost.exe is hosting many services.
P.S. You'll make more money and satisfy more customers if you can convince them to actually upgrade their RAM.
P.S. You'll make more money and satisfy more customers if you can convince them to actually upgrade their RAM.