and now the updates begin

[cm]

got a new laptop with vista home installed, started up connected to
Internet and Windows as expected went to the MS updates page, only 28
updates waiting. Not bad for a 6 month old OS, nice to look forward to 56 in
1 year or 84 in 18 months. But of course SP1 and SP2 will be available by
then. After about 2-3 years out will come another Windows OS can't imagine
what it will called, lovely way to make money big time, all you do is market
the software knowing its limitations but fool the buyers that its the best
thing since "SLICED BREAD".

Oh just one point in installing updates, why does Vista lose my home page
when updates are installed, easy to recover but just another quirk to put up
woth.

 

[Spirit]

Run Defender and check BHO's for your Home Page problem.

 

[Kerry Brown]

got a new laptop with vista home installed, started up connected to
Internet and Windows as expected went to the MS updates page, only 28
updates waiting. Not bad for a 6 month old OS, nice to look forward to 56
in 1 year or 84 in 18 months. But of course SP1 and SP2 will be available
by then. After about 2-3 years out will come another Windows OS can't
imagine what it will called, lovely way to make money big time, all you do
is market the software knowing its limitations but fool the buyers that
its the best thing since "SLICED BREAD".

Oh just one point in installing updates, why does Vista lose my home page
when updates are installed, easy to recover but just another quirk to put
up woth.

Can you point me to a current OS that does not have regular updates?

 

[cm]

That my point there isn't an OS without major probs that have to be resolved
with interminable updates, so MS should not sell it with the promise its
the best there is.

 

[Julian]

That my point there isn't an OS without major probs that have to be
resolved with interminable updates, so MS should not sell it with the
promise its the best there is.

Call the cops!

 

[Kerry Brown]

That my point there isn't an OS without major probs that have to be
resolved with interminable updates, so MS should not sell it with the
promise its the best there is.

What does marketing fluff have to do with updates? In any case it could be
argued that regular scheduled updates is better than unscheduled updates
that you have to keep checking for just in case. If all OS' have major
problems (and I don't agree with this broad statement) then wouldn't the one
that addresses fixing these problems the best would be considered the best
OS?

Vista has bugs and flaws. All OS' do. The fact that Microsoft publishes
regular updates for it is a plus rather than a minus. If you want to
criticize something then it's best to criticize the bad points not the good
points. Currently all the major OS' have a method of delivering updates.
They all seem to work pretty good to me.

 

[AnthonyR.]

What does marketing fluff have to do with updates? In any case it could be
argued that regular scheduled updates is better than unscheduled updates
that you have to keep checking for just in case. If all OS' have major
problems (and I don't agree with this broad statement) then wouldn't the
one that addresses fixing these problems the best would be considered the
best OS?

Vista has bugs and flaws. All OS' do. The fact that Microsoft publishes
regular updates for it is a plus rather than a minus. If you want to
criticize something then it's best to criticize the bad points not the
good points. Currently all the major OS' have a method of delivering
updates. They all seem to work pretty good to me.

I have been building and using PC's since the early 90's and tried every OS,
so I think I understand her fustration.
Basically she, and most people want a computer that has an OS installed on
it, that has no flaws, meaning at the time of completion
it can do everything it's suppose to properly and that is it. Then she would
be satified with it's current features and use it as is, until she sees the
need to
buy or add new features or technologies later on.
So, if the laptop did e-mail and web browsing correctly, ran her tax
software or other program, she would be satisfied and never want to see an
update until such time she purchases new software that requires more from an
OS than her current version can give.

It's probably un unrealistic expectation, but I think that is hope she was
expecting from Vista as it is advertised.
Now for security, web browsers can continue to receive regular updates and
so can antivirus software, but the OS should
be 100% stable and complete at time of release, if it can run your software
then it should be good and never need updates again until
such time that new software needs new OS technology to run.

But like I stated, this is probably an unrealistic dream most people have
for a desired OS.
But the version of Ubuntu that will be supported as is for a few years,
might be running along those lines.
Just my 2 cents on her post

AnthonyR,

 

[Ian]

Did not lose mine. Can't think why the difference?

 

[Kerry Brown]

I have been building and using PC's since the early 90's and tried every OS,
so I think I understand her fustration.
Basically she, and most people want a computer that has an OS installed on
it, that has no flaws, meaning at the time of completion
it can do everything it's suppose to properly and that is it. Then she would
be satified with it's current features and use it as is, until she sees the
need to
buy or add new features or technologies later on.
So, if the laptop did e-mail and web browsing correctly, ran her tax
software or other program, she would be satisfied and never want to see an
update until such time she purchases new software that requires more from an
OS than her current version can give.

It's probably un unrealistic expectation, but I think that is hope she was
expecting from Vista as it is advertised.
Now for security, web browsers can continue to receive regular updates and
so can antivirus software, but the OS should
be 100% stable and complete at time of release, if it can run your software
then it should be good and never need updates again until
such time that new software needs new OS technology to run.

But like I stated, this is probably an unrealistic dream most people have
for a desired OS.
But the version of Ubuntu that will be supported as is for a few years,
might be running along those lines.
Just my 2 cents on her post

AnthonyR,

I am typing this in an Ubuntu install that was installed June 4, 2007. So
far I've had 91 updates. There is another 20 waiting to be downloaded. The
kernel has been updated three times so far. Many if not most of the
updates mention security. I'm not complaining or saying this is bad. It's
very good. I'm glad the updates are available. I am pointing out the
fallacy of your assumption that Ubuntu is stable "as is". There is no way
a modern OS can be programmed without bugs using current programming
technology. Every OS needs regular updates. The fact that most OS
distributors do this is commendable and a good feature not a bad one.