Just read Jooskes' problem with Updates!!! Am I the only person who has never downloaded a patch or update from M$ ever?. I've never liked that bit that says "Can't be uninstalled" I always think what if it makes my OS cough blood, then what, so I've looked at 'em then passed. Can't say I've suffered at all by declining. Or am I living on the edge LOL. Cochise.
Hey Cochise. I don't trust M$ much myself either. I have to admit that I have taken the patches on a few occasions.(I took the one regarding the exploit that MS Blast was using). When I had XP home installed I went with the SP1 cd. I definitely preferred that to downloading all of the patches in SP1 on dialup. I never take a patch until it's been out at least a week. I've read about problems from updating so I'd rather wait than be a "test case" for M$.
I think you are definitely living on the edge of you forgo any updates, however, you are also stretching the limits of luck if you are too hasty in applying them. There are very few occasions when a released patch should be installed immediately (the one that would have protected against MS Blaster is one of those). Usually, it is good (IMHO) to wait a bit before installing them just to ensure that any unforeseen issues encountered immediately after their release have had a chance to be addressed. As an example, I usually wait about three weeks after a service pack has been released before installing it. But the bottom line is that I always do install any critical update at least within a few weeks of release. Hope this helps
I had them on this system (Win98 SE), but it seemed to make my system crash more, so I dont bother with downloading updates from M$, Just a waste of time (Especially on dialup) so you can have a extra thing that crashes (Well, atleast my computer) and cannot be uninstalled (When something says it cant be uninstalled, I never download it ) **Edit** The reason why i dont have them now, is my computer messed up, and had to reformat about 3 weeks after I installed them
Well, I'm sorry but I can't agree with getting no patches at all - ever. Oft times, software is released with bugs in it, and whether we're talking Microsoft or any other software provider's applications, patches can be essential to just normal operations... While I agree with not being on the "bleeding edge," (ie. being so far forward of the leading edge in terms of patch release that you literally bleed from the sharpness of that edge), I can not say it is smart to never patch.
Luckily last threats could well be overcome by having your firewall configured to stop all and by using adequately recent virus signatures. But this means trusting these providers. Perhaps better than trusting MS, but i't still means that one component could be another risk. Best to patch regularly, but first assess the risks that the patch is meant to tackle. There is also an other issue at stake, but it concerns professional environments. If you're in a company, patching has to be part of the operations and security management processes. So in order to survive a third party audit (there you have a risk that you can't tackle by patching ), just arrange some form of patch management (including your testing processes) and document it!
