9 recommendations |
Consider NOT updating stable programs....In this forum recently we've seen concerns raised about "new and improved" versions of CCleaner and Foxit PDF reader.
We may be at the point where it is better to NOT do updates of utility programs.
Obviously some things do need updating---all security software, the operating system, browsers, Flash, etc.
But PDF readers---why would they need updates? The only one that does perhaps is Adobe and no one should be using Adobe anyway precisely because it is so prone to security problems.
And system cleaners---CCleaner has been stable for a long time now. Unless you put in a new computer OS that it can't handle---Windows 10 or whatever---there should be no reason to update CCleaner.
E-mail programs: Why update? The last few updates to Thunderbird did not make things better, they just added slowness and crap.
Word processing: I wish I had stuck with my old versions of MS Word. The new stuff is so much a PITA, it's become unusable. You can't even have single-spacing on documents without a lot of tweaking, because Microsoft decided that single-spacing was old-fashioned. I switched to LibreOffice.
TL/DR: Updates are needed for security programs, the operating system, browsers, Flash---but OTHERWISE most updates are BLOATCRAP.
Say no to bloatcrap! |
|
GuruGuy Premium Member join:2002-12-16 Atlanta, GA
1 recommendation |
GuruGuy
Premium Member
2014-Oct-1 8:39 am
I'm starting to feel the same way |
|
Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI
2 recommendations |
to PX Eliezer1
Why do you say browsers need updating? If Thunderbird doesn't then Fx and Pale Moon don't either. The OS? Gee, I have Windows 8.0 Pro and I don't have plans to update to 8.1 probably not even when Windows 8.0 goes unsupported in Jan 2016. Pale Moon current version is NOT being patched for the latest nasty...dev says its not a real nasty...no worry.
I think Flash and Java need updating but nothing else and I am not really sure they need it. I never upgraded XP Pro SP2 and that computer never got infected and just died a few weeks ago. If I have to keep updating browsers and OS constantly then I'd rather just say aloha to the internet and the use of computers as the fun is not there for some time now. It's become a nasty rat race rather than something interesting and useful. Why does the OS need patching all the time? Microsoft has proved recently, more than once, that they no longer can be trusted to provide clean patches that don't trash your computer.
I don't get your point...picking and choosing what can/should be updated and what shouldn't makes little sense. There is a terrible risk in updating anything now. It is probably more prudent to simply uninstall Java and turn Flash off and don't update anything as long as it is working well and that includes the OS even if Microsoft abandons it...since Microsoft can no longer be trusted to provide safe patches. |
|
|
Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC? Premium Member join:2004-07-08 united state
1 recommendation |
to PX Eliezer1
Im not sure i agree.
If a utility program you use has a known vulnerability in it, then its probably prudent to patch that piece of software.
I do agree many updates do make programs more bloated and often come bundled with junk you don't want, but I think reading the changelog, see what was changed/fixed, and deciding if those changes/fixes are important to you is the best way to go about deciding to patch or upgrade a program. Just my 0.02 anyways. |
|
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN
2 recommendations |
to PX Eliezer1
It depends on what the update contains, you can't make a carte blanche call without evaluating the contents and purpose of the update. Sometimes you are forced to update to be able to interact with others. Office is a great example. If you're working on documents with people who have a newer version you may not be able to see or use documents that they create until you update. Other updates are for security or functionality. You can't say all updates are bad/useless without taking a closer look at them individually. |
|
|
to Mele20
said by Mele20:Why do you say browsers need updating? If Thunderbird doesn't then Fx and Pale Moon don't either. Unless active content is enabled, relatively little risk of security issues from Thunderbird. By contrast, browsers are much higher risk for security problems, the job of a browser is to interact. Many PaleMoon updates are indeed security fixes. » www.palemoon.org/release ··· ng.shtml |
|
PX Eliezer1 |
to Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00:I do agree many updates do make programs more bloated and often come bundled with junk you don't want, but I think reading the changelog, see what was changed/fixed, and deciding if those changes/fixes are important to you is the best way to go about deciding to patch or upgrade a program. Yes, that is sensible. |
|
rfharThe World Sport, Played In Every Country Premium Member join:2001-03-26 Buicktown,Mi
2 recommendations |
to PX Eliezer1
I do not see the need to update any program that does not connect the net and is working just fine. |
|
|
said by rfhar:I do not see the need to update any program that does not connect the net and is working just fine. Yes to that too. CCleaner and PDF readers (as long as you don't use the PDF reader in a browser window) are examples of that.... |
|
therube join:2004-11-11 Randallstown, MD 1 edit |
to PX Eliezer1
Sorry to say, but it all comes down (mainly) to security fixes. So either you update, or you chug along with knowingly insecure versions & just deal with it. Yes Foxit has fixed security issues. Now, does that stop me from using my old version, v5.4.5? No. Because I lost faith (I guess you could say most trust) in Foxit. It is not my main reader, but I do use it fairly regularly. That version is sufficient for my needs, so I'll deal with it. While I have looked at the newer versions & while there may have been feature enhancements, it is nothing I cannot do without. Plus newer versions include "features" that I'm not understanding well enough & that I haven't investigated enough to be comfortable in using them. Email. Of course needs updates. Email is a browser. You may not want feature or UI/UX updates, but you certainly want security updates. MS regularly patches "Office" & Mozilla regularly patches, well all the Mozilla products. (Security patches.) Bloat may be bloat. And newer, more "secure" versions may add bloat (or UI/UX changes that you don't want). But when "bloat" & "security" are tied together & not backported (FF ESR versions being an exception), then again either you update for security (& whatever else tags along), or you don't & just deal with it. Now if its the bloat & UI/UX changes you don't want, then make yourself heard in that respect to the program makers. May or may not make a difference, but if enough voice up they may just change their ways. Oh, & I did stop updating XP . quote: Unless active content is enabled, relatively little risk of security issues from Thunderbird.
"Active content" is just one aspect. TB is affected by virtually every security vulnerability that FF is. Can you get away with an "insecure" browser, mail client? Yes. But you're always leaving yourself more open then need be. |
|
resare join:2012-11-07 Greenfield Park, QC
1 recommendation |
to PX Eliezer1
On my part, I really miss version 1.6.2 of Spybot S&D....Version 2 sucks I find. |
|
1 recommendation |
said by resare:On my part, I really miss version 1.6.2 of Spybot S&D....Version 2 sucks I find. Version 1.6.2 is still available from the maker. Look at the bottom of the page where it says Other Downloads. » www.safer-networking.org/dl/Also » www.safer-networking.org ··· rrors16/ |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |
to therube
said by therube:...Yes Foxit has fixed security issues. Now, does that stop me from using my old version, v5.4.5? No. Because I lost faith (I guess you could say most trust) in Foxit. ...   I stopped using Foxit because they cannot seem to get the UI working properly or consistently anymore. I switched to PDFXchange Viewer, which works as well as Foxit used to work, before Foxit started messing with the UI. But to your point, I agree for the most part. If you understand the security risks, and behave accordingly, then you've protected yourself from 99% of the online risks. On the other hand, if a vendor has a good rep in updating but not bloating, then I'll go the update route. |
|
2 recommendations |
I update everything that needs an update always, I feel much safer with everything fully patched and up to date--All Windows 8.1 Updates, All Antivirus (avast), all 3rd party programs, every single thing on my PC's fully updated always |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
2 recommendations |
to PX Eliezer1
IIABDFI! There are really only 3 sound reasons to update smoothly-functioning software: security or stability flaws, feature/protocol upgrades to match necessary external protocol upgrades, or to acquire an entirely new and useful (to the user) product feature. A lot of well-designed software rarely, if ever, provides the first reason. Even less likely is the second, for much software. The third reason is something either self-inflicted by users or is pushed by eager designers via auto-updating. But in any case, continual updating of everything possible is a recipe for system instability - or far worse.
A person buys a computer, installs an OS, and installs various apps and utilities... all of which he debugs, applies settings that let all the software play together nicely, and sets out learning and customizing various detail aspects of his system. Once that system is finally stable, the wise user will require a solid reason (1 of the 3 above, with sober consideration about #3) for making any kind of update change to it... and that certainly doesn't include "just because" some software has been updated for some unknown or irrelevant reason. This is why auto-updating is such a danger to stable systems. Even manual software updates should be proofed first by waiting for the published responses of the early-adopters (the "canaries in the cage"). |
|
antdudeMatrix Ant Premium Member join:2001-03-25 US |
to PX Eliezer1
And it still works and gets weekly updates. Who knows how long it will last. Same for MBAM, SAS, etc. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
said by antdude:And it still works and gets weekly updates. Who knows how long it will last. Same for MBAM, SAS, etc. I just ran 1.6.2 the other day on my Vista PC after a long while of forgetting. I asked it to update its definitions, and it did so without errors, and the scan found a few cookies - nothing more. - The most recent defs retrieved were however from Jan 2014, IIRC.OTOH, on the same day, I installed the current SpyBot version onto my main PC (which is still XP), and it was accepted there, and found - wait for it - a few cookies. It also offered to clean up a bunch of recently accessed files lists of non-internet apps - I told it to only dump the cookies. After that, I had to re-establish some of my login creds, so I likely should have been more selective about which cookies. I still like 1.75 of MBAM too. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to PX Eliezer1
yep. newer isn't always better. |
|
jmorlanHmm... That's funny. MVM join:2001-02-05 Pacifica, CA ARRIS BGW210-700 Obihai OBi200
1 recommendation |
to PX Eliezer1
As others have said, it depends on the update and whether the update patches security vulnerabilities. One utility that lets you know if you have programs that need security patches and nothing else (no non-security related updates) is Secunia PSI |
|
|
to PX Eliezer1
... and be sure to turn off any auto updating if possible. |
|
1 recommendation |
to PX Eliezer1
I generally never update just to update... |
|
sivranVive Vivaldi Premium Member join:2003-09-15 Irving, TX |
to jmorlan
I wonder if PSI picks up portable apps. (probably not, I'm guessing) I use quite a few nowadays. I've taken to using the portable version, if available, of anything. |
|
antdudeMatrix Ant Premium Member join:2001-03-25 US |
to PX Eliezer1
I hate having to get updates that require new major versions like iOS! |
|
jmorlanHmm... That's funny. MVM join:2001-02-05 Pacifica, CA ARRIS BGW210-700 Obihai OBi200
|
to sivran
said by sivran:I wonder if PSI picks up portable apps. Actually it does, at least in most cases. It looks all over for programs, not just in "Program Files." |
|
|
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere : I just ran 1.6.2 the other day on my Vista PC after a long while of forgetting.
I asked it to update its definitions ... The most recent defs retrieved were however from Jan 2014, IIRC.
That's odd! I just updated 1.6.2.46 and the latest definitions are dated 10/1/2014. The previous ones were dated 9/10/2014. It may depend on where you downloaded the update from. I used to download from BN FileForum, but the last few times I tried that I got a failed download with a bad checksum. So this time I used FastSpeedTest. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to slyphoxj
said by slyphoxj:... and be sure to turn off any auto updating if possible. OOOOH - THAT's the worst kind ! Not only does it do something which you may not want, but it runs an app in the background, and wastes system resources (aka slooooooowwwwws down your computer) in order to do so. |
|
Davesnothere 2 edits
1 recommendation |
to jupitermoon
said by jupitermoon:said by Davesnothere : I just ran 1.6.2 the other day on my Vista PC after a long while of forgetting.
I asked it to update its definitions ... The most recent defs retrieved were however from Jan 2014, IIRC.
That's odd! I just updated 1.6.2.46 and the latest definitions are dated 10/1/2014. The previous ones were dated 9/10/2014. It may depend on where you downloaded the update from. I used to download from BN FileForum, but the last few times I tried that I got a failed download with a bad checksum. So this time I used FastSpeedTest. Good point. SpyBot offers a choice of source during the process of updating. I'll review. Yes, I just checked again and it offered me 10-01-2014 defs, and I took them. But I was sure that the defs date on the last ones I got was much earlier than the last date that I got them. I must be losing it. |
|
TheMG Premium Member join:2007-09-04 Canada MikroTik RB450G Cisco DPC3008 Cisco SPA112
1 recommendation |
to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:Word processing: I wish I had stuck with my old versions of MS Word. The new stuff is so much a PITA, it's become unusable. You can't even have single-spacing on documents without a lot of tweaking, because Microsoft decided that single-spacing was old-fashioned. I switched to LibreOffice. I'm still running Office 2003. Does everything I need it to do, and is much faster without any of the gimmicks found in the newer versions. No reason to upgrade. |
|
norwegian Premium Member join:2005-02-15 Outback |
to jmorlan
said by jmorlan:One utility that lets you know if you have programs that need security patches and nothing else (no non-security related updates) is Secunia PSI Quite a handy tool and has been for sometime. In fact Kaspersky used it a few versions ago to aid in keeping you alerted to being updated. I see a lot of Security Software now has a function similar to this. Thank you to the 2 gents who first brought this tool to the Internet to aid in user needs. |
|
runnoft Premium Member join:2003-10-14 Nags Head, NC
1 recommendation |
to PX Eliezer1
I think forced software upgrades are a significant and under-discussed disadvantage of cloud-based subscription models such as Adobe Creative Cloud and Microsoft Office 365. At a time when feature upgrades become less and less compelling because the current or an earlier version of software already has the features many users need and want, when you're locked into a cloud-based subscription model, you're going to be forced to upgrade to newer versions of the software that may be more bloated, problem-prone, and less efficient at doing what you want to do. With disk-based software, you could just keep using the old version.
But in Creative Cloud, for example, my understanding is that if your subscription remains paid and active, you can hold off updating to a newly released version, but only for one year. At that point your access to the old version is removed, and you must update to a newer one. This may also force hardware upgrades you may not be able to afford in the case of the very resource-intensive Creative Cloud programs such as Photoshop in particular. Your only alternative if the new version(s) are not to your liking is to discontinue your subscription. You would still have access to your photos or documents or whatever if you did that, but you would be limited in your ability to make new edits. Not a good way for most consumers to go. |
|