|reply to rcdailey |
Re: Windows Vista infection rates climb, says Microsoft
said by rcdailey:And 8086 processors (we have quite a few of those where I work). Still chugging along just fine over 30 years later.
For that matter there are probably still embedded systems that have Z80 processors. They don't even run MSDOS.
Of course, the internet didn't even exist when that equipment was designed and built.
|reply to rcdailey |
said by rcdailey:I have five PCs at home (of various vintages and models, but most fairly new) running XP/Vista/Win7 (mostly Vista). I am very religious about keeping them all patched and up to date, doing this typically no more than 24 to 48 hours from whenever Microsoft patches are released. However, come patch Tuesday or whatever, invariably at least one of these boxes (usually a different one each go-round, and sometimes more than one) will have a hissy fit and refuse to install one or more patches without my taking some extra measures - sometimes extraordinary measures - in order to make them all go on to that machine. This is something that the average user just isn't going to know how to do nor has the patience to do. But even on a good day, patching can turn into an all-day event, with .Net patches being the worst offenders (these can take forever to install). And in many cases, the new patches can cause their own stability problems or other side-effects.
I'm not saying Win 7 doesn't need patching, but then the problem with Vista may have been people who simply did not patch or waited too long and then there were problems, possibly due to malware, that interfered with installing all the patches.
Some dedicated workstation systems still use versions of XP and probably won't be upgraded because the hardware and software installed does what it needs to do. I am thinking of an example of a digital x-ray sytem running XP Pro SP3 on a Xeon 32-bit processor. It does what it needs to do and doesn't need Vista or Win 7 to do it. For that matter there are probably still embedded systems that have Z80 processors. They don't even run MSDOS.
These types of patching issues are an ongoing problem for many people, as you can see here (an example from this week, and something that I've run into in the past myself): »[XPPro] I keep getting prompted to make the same three updates..
Forgot to add this: How many people know that once you've installed a set of patches, you need to cycle back through the Microsoft Update process again in order to make sure that there aren't even more patches to install? The job isn't done until you come back clean (no more patches), and often a reboot is required between cycles. This is something that I run into on occasion, and for service pack installations, I've sometimes had to make this cycle a half-dozen times or more, which is ridiculous!
·Time Warner Cable
Yeah, I always run update again later on and the next day and so on just to be sure. I checked a system with XP Pro SP3 again, today, and everything was up-to-date. In fact, that is the digital x-ray system I mentioned earlier, and it doesn't have auto updates enabled. That was how it was configured by the vendor, so I left it that way. I only did updates when it was finally decided that the system would be connected to the internet. I put MSE on it since there was no anti-virus installed. Fortunately, the system is not used for browsing or e-mail and it is not on the LAN.
It is easier for a camel to put on a bikini than an old man to thread a needle.
|reply to Aranarth_t |
I can't help but wonder if those who fail to update in a timely manner are the same ones who incur the most pc infections.
DownTheShoreNo Tea For MePremiumReviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
|reply to StuartMW |
said by StuartMW:I do - lol. said by DownTheShore:
...making you click sixteen times to merge a folder into another....
Well when I knew I'd be getting 16 or more UAC prompts I'd "Run As Administrator"
But my Vista box died (hardware) and now sits in a coffin (the box it came in) in storage.