Has Microsoft lost its mind?

[robinb]

did you see today there are in windows 7, vista and XP depending on the OS you have and what version of Office- up to 25 Security Updates!!

OMG makes you want to go buy a Mac.

What ever happend after giving us Windows 7 the security updates would finally stop?

I installed them so far on 4 computers (a bunch at a time, not all at once) and so far all is well. Is it all well with you guys too?

robin

[dw426]

At what point did anyone say Windows 7 would stop security patches? I'm afraid you'll be waiting a while for patches to any software to stop.

[robinb]

well i thought with a better OS maybe the security updates would slow down a bit, and i went to a Microsoft convention a whiles back advertizing Windows 7 and the Rep from Microsoft said when asked- we would see way much less security updates.
Cough Cough- guess he was not telling the complete truth.
You think by Windows 8 they will get it finally right? <grin>
robin

[robinb]

oh and btw Software, yes that i expect to see patches from any company out there, security updates- NO. If Micrososft built a more security OS it would not have to be patched.
Yea and I know if we lived in a perfect world,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
robin

[funkydude]

Originally Posted by robinb

OMG makes you want to go buy a Mac.

No it doesn't.

[TonyW]

Macs aren't immune from updates either. Apple releases security updates from time to time too.

[acuariano]

imagine windows 8 is coming,plus more patches..
ah...and ie10

[Carbonyl]

That's a rather absurd take on the issue. Apple releases updates for security and compatibility purposes too. They're just tighter lipped about what happened, and don't release bulletins.

Honestly, Microsoft would be out of their minds NOT to patch. Be happy they're fixing as many things as they did. 26 vulnerabilities were closed today. How is that not a good thing?

[CloneRanger]

I havn't forgotten when Vista was about to be released, and BG said it was the most secure OS MS had ever made That didn't need many security updates did it ! Not much, and still does

W7 was supposed to be even better according to Ballmer. What happened to both ? Oh and Ballmer came out publically and admitted last year, words to the effect of, Vista wasn't "all that" actually

Marketing is NOT substance, never was, never will be, but it's amazing how may people still fall for ALL the BS

[J_L]

Sure don't patch it. No one is forcing you to be secure from vulnerabilities.

Dumbest post I've seen in a long time.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by robinb

oh and btw Software, yes that i expect to see patches from any company out there, security updates- NO. If Micrososft built a more security OS it would not have to be patched.
Yea and I know if we lived in a perfect world,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
robin

Security patches happen because humans don't create perfect creations, and the bad guys are the most persistent humans in existence. I know what you're meaning though, and to that I say Win 7 is a far cry from XP and below in security issues. Many issues are caused by things MS is stubborn about hanging on to. Though slightly off-topic, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Internet Explorer to still use Active-X for anything. But, its Microsoft's "baby" if you will, and they continue to use it where they can.

[Rompin Raider]

Originally Posted by J_L

Sure don't patch it. No one is forcing you to be secure from vulnerabilities.

Dumbest post I've seen in a long time.

Get A Rope!

[robinb]

Originally Posted by J_L

Sure don't patch it. No one is forcing you to be secure from vulnerabilities.

Dumbest post I've seen in a long time.

no post is dumb, and i can stress out that i have to keep the system secured especially when i have to do 60 computers that i maintain. You do not like my comment don't read it but you have no right to be rude.

robin

[Page42]

Originally Posted by Carbonyl

Be happy they're fixing as many things as they did. 26 vulnerabilities were closed today. How is that not a good thing?

Exactly!

Originally Posted by robinb

OMG makes you want to go buy a Mac.

Originally Posted by funkydude

No it doesn't.

LOL! Thanks for the laugh of the day.
I do understand the OP's point about secure operating systems shouldn't need so many patches, but you can't fault a company for trying to get something right. Well, maybe some can, but I'm not one of them.

[Eice]

Originally Posted by robinb

no post is dumb

AHAA HAHAHAH HAHAHAHAH HAHAHA.

"oh and btw Software, yes that i expect to see patches from any company out there, security updates- NO."

After that little gem, sorry, but it's just rather difficult to take you and/or your level of intellect seriously anymore.

[robinb]

Originally Posted by Eice

AHAA HAHAHAH HAHAHAHAH HAHAHA.

"oh and btw Software, yes that i expect to see patches from any company out there, security updates- NO."

After that little gem, sorry, but it's just rather difficult to take you and/or your level of intellect seriously anymore.

No meant I would expect Microsoft to finally get it right and make an OS that required some patching but not so many every month. I have not seen a month since Windows 95 that did not have security patches.
they had enough years to finally get it right and with Windows 7 they still have not.
And yes Macs do have security updates but not as much as Microsoft and believe me if the Mac was not so expensive (you can purchase 2 pcs for the price of a Mac) i would have switched a long time ago. Unfortunetly my clients cannot afford a Mac so I am left in the hands of Micrososft. But every Mac person I speak to tell me "there is nothing like a Mac" and all of them are coming from Microsoft.
And since i have a computer business I have to go with what my type of clients use or I would be out of business, so I am in the mercy of Microsoft.
as I am betting most of you here are too,
robin

[J_L]

@Rompin Raider: What is that supposed to mean?

@robinb: The thing is, the more patches there are, the better it is (at least for me). That means the vendor is determined to keep their product secure.
Switching to Macs only means you're at the mercy of Apple. The best alternative to Windows is Linux. It's the least expensive of the three. Wine allows compatibility with Windows programs as well.

[GrailVanGogh]

Originally Posted by robinb

oh and btw Software, yes that i expect to see patches from any company out there, security updates- NO. If Micrososft built a more security OS it would not have to be patched.
Yea and I know if we lived in a perfect world,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
robin

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

[Eice]

Originally Posted by robinb

And since i have a computer business...

Windows runs just fine. The updates are automated, and experts agree that exploit protections and security mechanisms in Windows 7 are superior to those in Mac OS X. I daresay it's your general ignorance and incompetence that your customers are at the mercy of, instead of Microsoft.

[tipo]

Originally Posted by robinb

OMG makes you want to go buy a Mac.

or switch for free to linux...

[Someheresomethere]

Originally Posted by tipo

or switch for free to linux...

Are you sure you understand what the OP is complaining about? Because Linux isn't any better in that regard.

[doktornotor]

Originally Posted by robinb

no post is dumb, and i can stress out that i have to keep the system secured especially when i have to do 60 computers that i maintain.

Yeah, use WSUS. Done.

Complaining about fixing vulnerabilities... uh.

[Kyle1420]

complaining about security fixes?
I'm glad they are patching the system up to be more secure, keep em' coming!

[lodore]

Whichever OS has the most market share will be the biggest target. it has been proven that OSX is less secure than windows but apple haven't bothered sorting it out because people dont target macs.
I dont get why people think windows is less secure and thats why they have to patch more. people should be pleased Microsoft are generally open about vulnerabilities and patch them quickly.

ive just installed the 19 security updates on my desktop and no issues so far.

[robinb]

i guess to round it out, no we do not live in a perfect world, but it would be nice to not have those who want to make our lives less frustrated by not attacking OS's regardless which OS is used. And it would be nice if a company could figure it out how to permantely stop this from happening, then it would not matter which OS one uses.

and yes i was just venting because if i had one computer maybe I would just go with the flow, but since i maintain 60 computers, it takes a whole lot of wasted time to do all their security updates. No i do not believe of throwing them all on at once because if one goes haywire like we have seen before (Micrososft has pulled security updates that have caused havic on computers after it was pushed out), at least I can figure out which one caused it without uninstalling all of them.

Maybe what I really feel is Microsoft should thoroughly test them all prior to pushing them out, if we have to have them to secure our systems, at least make sure one doesn't have to cross fingers prior to installing them.
Look at the post prior to mine- he installed them all and thanked that all installed with no problems.

I remember 2mths ago there was one that was causing a blue screen after reboot on many computers and micrososft pulled this off windows update.


robin