Bad sectors... how bad?

[djs0302]

yeah,

I have an external drive that I back up to, but re-loading my operating
system and all the programs is a real hassle that takes hours. I don't
have the actual XP disk so I have to load 95 and run all the upgrades up
through sevice pack two!!!

I guess HDs are so cheap that it makes sense to consider replacing it. I
guess the observation I have is, I've had drives with bad sectors last a
year and then crash, I've had them last three months and crash. Maybe
I've had drives with bad sectors that I never knew about and never knew
the difference. But I've never had a drive with no bad sectors crash.

My problem is I'm one of those guys who makes a computer work, it's not
always pretty, but I keep it going. I don't really know a lot about some
of the details like what a bad sector really is, what causes it, and what
it means.

You sound a lot like me, well except for that part about having to load
95 and then install all the upgrades up to service pack two. I still
have an old Packard Bell computer that I got 9 years ago. (I'm using
it now.) The hard drive started showing bad sectors about two years
ago. It started running scandisk at every startup but I disabled that.
I figured I'd use it till the day it will no longer start up. When
the bad sectors started to become more frequent I decided it was time
to find a new hard drive that I could use with that computer. Well, I
have the new hard drive and all my backups. Now all I need is for the
old hard drive to die completely. You keep saying what a hassle it is
to reload the operating system and all your programs but if your hard
drive dies you'll have to reload everything anyway so I wouldn't worry
about it. The important thing is that you're ready when the hard drive
dies. Who knows you may get lucky and not have to replace the drive,
then again it could quit working tomorrow.

 

[David Maynard]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in




yeah,

I have an external drive that I back up to, but re-loading my operating
system and all the programs is a real hassle that takes hours. I don't
have the actual XP disk so I have to load 95

I presume you mean you have an 'upgrade' XP CD and so have to load an
'original' O.S. first.

and run all the upgrades up
through sevice pack two!!!

No, you don't. Just load SP2, which includes all updates prior to SP2's
release, and then the remaining post SP2 updates after that.

And since your CD is apparently pre-SP2 you should download the
'redistribution' version (huge file) and keep it on CD so you don't have to
redownload if you need to install XP again (or make yourself an SP2 slip
streamed XP CD).

 

[Geoff]

I had the same issues but I use spinrite now and even when my drive had
smart errors, spinrite fixed it. However, if I lost data, spinrite is able
to recover most of it.

The only situation it can not handle is where the drive no longer works
(does not spin, bios does not recognize it, etc.). The other downside is it
takes about 12 hours on my machine to do 80 gigs.

-g

 

[Pdigmking]

No, you don't. Just load SP2, which includes all updates prior to
SP2's release, and then the remaining post SP2 updates after that.

And since your CD is apparently pre-SP2 you should download the
'redistribution' version (huge file) and keep it on CD so you don't
have to redownload if you need to install XP again (or make yourself
an SP2 slip streamed XP CD).

I guess I should be more precise. When I say I run all the upgrades, I'm
only talking about the disks, I don't have to laod 98, then downlaod the
upgrades for that... then load XP.. download those... and so on.

Someone said that I don't have to load the previous versions, this is
just not true. Believe me, I've tried. The only original load OS disk I
have is a Win 95. All the others are upgrade disks, and they won't work
unless the previous version is installed. They look for previous
versions, and if they don't see it, they won't load. I tried loading SP2
but it looked for an existing XP and wouldn't load.

As long as I'm on the subject this is one of my biggest complaints about
MS. First hey sell you a defective OS's for $75-$100 (by defective I
mean full of security holes, instability etc.). Then, they start selling
updgrades devective upgrades for the same price. They want $200.00 for a
non upgrade program disk. You pay $100.00 for the upgrade, it's
defective so you have to download patches the day you load it. If you
started all this (like I did) back with DOS, you've spent $600.00 just to
have an operating system (to be fair, DOS and win 3.11 were very stable).
You pay $100 for an upgrade, and then you have to go out get the patches
for it, this is no small inconvenience. When I built my mother in laws
machine, it literally ten hour to get the OS loaded because she has a
dial up connection. Sure, the patches are free, but if you don't have
high speed internet your looking at hours of downlaod time. Yes I know
you can have the upgrades run in the background but my mother in law was
leaving for Panama in two days and I wanted to have as patched up as
possible before she left because I have no idea what kind of ISP and
internet environment she'll have to deal with down there.

Then comes along this lame antitrust settlement that allows MS to
continue to sell defective OS's followed by upgrades. Here's what I
would have liked to see:

No more upgrade only CDs. Every CD should be a complete OS CD with
upgrade options. I think the only difference between the $200 XP disk
and the $100 upgrade is that the upgrade looks for previous installs.

No MS OS should cost more than $100 from now on.

MS should be required to release patches, in CD form, for free, every six
months. No one with a dial up should have to sit around for six hours
with a vulnerable OS waiting for all the patches to download and install
on your brand new $100 operating system! The background option is fine
for weekly maintaince, but after six months, your usually looking
multiple and large patches and program updates.

That's what I say!

Paul.

 

[JAD]

I guess I should be more precise. When I say I run all the upgrades, I'm
only talking about the disks, I don't have to laod 98, then downlaod the
upgrades for that... then load XP.. download those... and so on.

Someone said that I don't have to load the previous versions, this is
just not true. Believe me, I've tried. The only original load OS disk I
have is a Win 95. All the others are upgrade disks, and they won't work
unless the previous version is installed. They look for previous
versions, and if they don't see it, they won't load. I tried loading SP2
but it looked for an existing XP and wouldn't load.

As long as I'm on the subject this is one of my biggest complaints about
MS. First hey sell you a defective OS's for $75-$100 (by defective I
mean full of security holes, instability etc.). Then, they start selling
updgrades devective upgrades for the same price. They want $200.00 for a
non upgrade program disk. You pay $100.00 for the upgrade, it's
defective so you have to download patches the day you load it. If you
started all this (like I did) back with DOS, you've spent $600.00 just to
have an operating system (to be fair, DOS and win 3.11 were very stable).
You pay $100 for an upgrade, and then you have to go out get the patches
for it, this is no small inconvenience. When I built my mother in laws
machine, it literally ten hour to get the OS loaded because she has a
dial up connection. Sure, the patches are free, but if you don't have
high speed internet your looking at hours of downlaod time. Yes I know
you can have the upgrades run in the background but my mother in law was
leaving for Panama in two days and I wanted to have as patched up as
possible before she left because I have no idea what kind of ISP and
internet environment she'll have to deal with down there.

Then comes along this lame antitrust settlement that allows MS to
continue to sell defective OS's followed by upgrades. Here's what I
would have liked to see:

No more upgrade only CDs. Every CD should be a complete OS CD with
upgrade options. I think the only difference between the $200 XP disk
and the $100 upgrade is that the upgrade looks for previous installs.

No MS OS should cost more than $100 from now on.

MS should be required to release patches, in CD form, for free, every six
months. No one with a dial up should have to sit around for six hours
with a vulnerable OS waiting for all the patches to download and install
on your brand new $100 operating system! The background option is fine
for weekly maintaince, but after six months, your usually looking
multiple and large patches and program updates.

That's what I say!

Paul.

I am having brain fade at the moment, I installed XP without an OS on the
drive, installed from a upgrade disk. Started the install then it verified
by putting the ME disk in the drive, I didn't INSTALL 'me' first. Installing
95 on a newer system must be a bitch.

 

[djs0302]

Someone said that I don't have to load the previous versions, this is
just not true. Believe me, I've tried. The only original load OS disk I
have is a Win 95. All the others are upgrade disks, and they won't work
unless the previous version is installed. They look for previous
versions, and if they don't see it, they won't load. I tried loading SP2
but it looked for an existing XP and wouldn't load.

Now I've heard, although I've never tried it, that a Windows 95 install
disk can be used with a Windows XP upgrade cd. Simply start with a
formatted hard drive and insert the Windows XP upgrade cd. When it
asks for proof of a previous version of Windows remove the XP upgrade
cd and insert your Windows 95 cd. After it ok's the cd remove it and
reinsert the XP cd. It's important that you don't actually install
Windows 95 to the hard drive before installing XP. Windows XP won't
upgrade from Windows 95 but a Windows 95 install disk can be used as
proof of purchase of a previous version of Windows.

 

[djs0302]

Someone said that I don't have to load the previous versions, this is
just not true. Believe me, I've tried. The only original load OS disk I
have is a Win 95. All the others are upgrade disks, and they won't work
unless the previous version is installed. They look for previous
versions, and if they don't see it, they won't load. I tried loading SP2
but it looked for an existing XP and wouldn't load.

Now I've heard, although I've never tried it, that a Windows 95 install
disk can be used with a Windows XP upgrade cd. Simply start with a
formatted hard drive and insert the Windows XP upgrade cd. When it
asks for proof of a previous version of Windows remove the XP upgrade
cd and insert your Windows 95 cd. After it ok's the cd remove it and
reinsert the XP cd. It's important that you don't actually install
Windows 95 to the hard drive before installing XP. Windows XP won't
upgrade from Windows 95 but a Windows 95 install disk can be used as
proof of purchase of a previous version of Windows.

 

[David Maynard]

I guess I should be more precise. When I say I run all the upgrades, I'm
only talking about the disks, I don't have to laod 98, then downlaod the
upgrades for that... then load XP.. download those... and so on.

Someone said that I don't have to load the previous versions, this is
just not true. Believe me, I've tried. The only original load OS disk I
have is a Win 95. All the others are upgrade disks, and they won't work
unless the previous version is installed. They look for previous
versions, and if they don't see it, they won't load.

Not quite. The O.S. being upgraded does not have to be 'installed' as the
upgrade CD will accept you putting on the 'original' full O.S. CD to check.

Unfortunately, for you, there is no direct upgrade path from Win95 to XP so
you'd have to first install Win98, using the 'original O.S.' Win95 CD for
it to check (not install), since the win98 'upgrade' CD won't do as an
original O.S. check for XP.

I tried loading SP2
but it looked for an existing XP and wouldn't load.

Well, of course SP2 for XP isn't going to install on anything but XP.

As long as I'm on the subject this is one of my biggest complaints about
MS. First hey sell you a defective OS's for $75-$100 (by defective I
mean full of security holes, instability etc.). Then, they start selling
updgrades devective upgrades for the same price. They want $200.00 for a
non upgrade program disk. You pay $100.00 for the upgrade, it's
defective so you have to download patches the day you load it.

Hate to tell you this but what you call 'defective' is simply life in the
computer O.S. world, or any software for that matter. Go ahead and install
Linux, if you like, and then check for the gazillion security
updates/patches/fixes for it as well.

And it has always been that way regardless of what computer or O.S.

Actually, it used to be much worse because the 'fixes' routinely broke what
already worked.

If you
started all this (like I did) back with DOS, you've spent $600.00 just to
have an operating system (to be fair, DOS and win 3.11 were very stable).
You pay $100 for an upgrade, and then you have to go out get the patches
for it, this is no small inconvenience. When I built my mother in laws
machine, it literally ten hour to get the OS loaded because she has a
dial up connection. Sure, the patches are free, but if you don't have
high speed internet your looking at hours of downlaod time. Yes I know
you can have the upgrades run in the background but my mother in law was
leaving for Panama in two days and I wanted to have as patched up as
possible before she left because I have no idea what kind of ISP and
internet environment she'll have to deal with down there.

You're doing it the hard way. As I mentioned in my previous post, SP2, as
well as all the other patches, are available in 'redistribution' (meaning
full) versions that you can download and save off to a CD, or whatever you
like, so that you needn't download them again to 'update' a new install.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...be-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&displaylang=en

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/Popular.aspx?displaylang=en&categoryid=7

Then comes along this lame antitrust settlement that allows MS to
continue to sell defective OS's followed by upgrades. Here's what I
would have liked to see:

You're complaining about 'reality' and there is no law that can make people
omniscient nor infallible. Software of any significant complexity contains
bugs and software written to fix bugs will contain bugs. And it will always
be that way was long as there are human beings involved.

No more upgrade only CDs. Every CD should be a complete OS CD with
upgrade options.

Simple to solve all by your own little lonesome: don't buy upgrade CDs.

I think the only difference between the $200 XP disk
and the $100 upgrade is that the upgrade looks for previous installs.

Yep. They give you an break on a new O.S. if you've previously bought one.
Nice of them, don't you think?

Basically you're gaming the system by perpetually buying 'upgrade' CDs and
then complaining they don't make it even easier for you to avoid buying the
O.S.

No MS OS should cost more than $100 from now on.

Well, while we're going to dictate prices why not declare that no car shall
cost more than 1,000 dollars and TV sets shall be 20 bucks?

MS should be required to release patches,

They do.

in CD form, for free,

CDs cost money. Shipping costs money.

But you can order a SP2 CD for free, plus shipping and handling.

every six
months.

So when a vulnerability is found you want to remain vulnerable for 6
months, eh?

With the exception of your arbitrary '6 months' time table they already do
essentially that with the service pack releases.

No one with a dial up should have to sit around for six hours
with a vulnerable OS waiting for all the patches to download and install
on your brand new $100 operating system! The background option is fine
for weekly maintaince, but after six months, your usually looking
multiple and large patches and program updates.

Order the CD.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp2/cdorder/en_us/default.mspx

 

[David Maynard]

I am having brain fade at the moment, I installed XP without an OS on the
drive, installed from a upgrade disk. Started the install then it verified
by putting the ME disk in the drive, I didn't INSTALL 'me' first. Installing
95 on a newer system must be a bitch.

His problem is there's no direct upgrade path from Win95 to XP so the XP
upgrade CD will not accept a Win95 CD as the 'proof of purchase' and since
his Win98 CD is also an upgrade CD it won't accept that either.

His simplest solution, if he insists on perpetually buying upgrade CDs,
would be to install Win98, or something else that XP will upgrade, onto
some machine and then save off a disk image into CD. Then he could simply
restore it to a hard drive and run his 'upgrade' CD on it. And the Win98
image need not 'run' on the machine he restores it to; Just do the image,
boot the XP upgrade CD, and install.

 

[David Maynard]

Pdigmking wrote:




Now I've heard, although I've never tried it, that a Windows 95 install
disk can be used with a Windows XP upgrade cd. Simply start with a
formatted hard drive and insert the Windows XP upgrade cd. When it
asks for proof of a previous version of Windows remove the XP upgrade
cd and insert your Windows 95 cd. After it ok's the cd remove it and
reinsert the XP cd. It's important that you don't actually install
Windows 95 to the hard drive before installing XP. Windows XP won't
upgrade from Windows 95 but a Windows 95 install disk can be used as
proof of purchase of a previous version of Windows.

Interesting. I didn't think it would since there's no upgrade path but then
I've never actually tried it with a Win95 CD.

I'd try it, just to see, but my XP is the full version.

 

[djs0302]

Interesting. I didn't think it would since there's no upgrade path but then
I've never actually tried it with a Win95 CD.

I'd try it, just to see, but my XP is the full version.

There's a thread on microsoft.public.windowsxp.general that discusses
the subject. Just do a search on Google groups for a thread titled
"upgrading to windows 95 to windows xp" or type in the search terms
windows 95 xp upgrade.

 

[David Maynard]

There's a thread on microsoft.public.windowsxp.general that discusses
the subject. Just do a search on Google groups for a thread titled
"upgrading to windows 95 to windows xp" or type in the search terms
windows 95 xp upgrade.

OK. I see some references saying it works as a qualifying media check.

Interesting that it won't upgrade Win95 but will accept it for qualifying.

 

[sdlomi2]

OK, so I'm crazy over all this HD stuff, I'm looking at HDs, tryingn to
find out if one brand is better than the other, what difference does
buffer
make etc. All this concern is raised by the fact that I ran a chkdsk and
found one bad sector, and maybe my addled brain heard the dreaded
"clacking" from the HD. Setting aside my addled brain for the moment, how
bad is it really to find a bad sector? I mean, does this really mean my
drive is crashing? I just want to catch this before it crashes this time
so I don't have to spend hours re-loading all my programs again.

Any thoughts?

Paul

After reading all the above: can't you borrow a friend's legit 98-disc
or ME-disc for about 20 minutes? That's assuming you have a cd-burner.
Assure him you don't even need his cd-key. s

 

[Pdigmking]

After reading all the above: can't you borrow a friend's legit
98-disc
or ME-disc for about 20 minutes? That's assuming you have a
cd-burner. Assure him you don't even need his cd-key. s

I don't have to "borrow" anything, I've got a legit 98 disc, I paid for it.
I still have to install it before I can get XP on the system. As I said,
I've bought over $500 worth of Windows OS's starting with DOS 5 I think.

I see that I can skip a full install of 95 by inserting but I can't get XP
on the system without installing 98. That'll save me some time, thanks.
My plan is to catch the HD before it crashes and avoid ever having to laod
an OS again!!! I think that'll work eh. He he.

Paul.

 

[JAD]

I don't have to "borrow" anything, I've got a legit 98 disc, I paid for it.
I still have to install it before I can get XP on the system. As I said,
I've bought over $500 worth of Windows OS's starting with DOS 5 I think.

I see that I can skip a full install of 95 by inserting but I can't get XP
on the system without installing 98. That'll save me some time, thanks.
My plan is to catch the HD before it crashes and avoid ever having to laod
an OS again!!! I think that'll work eh. He he.

Nope you do not have to install 98 at all, I don't really know why you
insist, but go ahead. Installing / upgrading your OS from/over another is
not recommended.

You simply boot with the XP CDROM
Begin the install
You see a notice that you need to put in a legit copy of 98(or what ever
qualifies) in the CDROM
XP install will scan that disk
When it finds what it needs it will prompt you to put back the XP Disk
and it continues to the 'product key' insertion and then on with the install

Joe

 

[Pdigmking]

Hate to tell you this but what you call 'defective' is simply life in
the computer O.S. world, or any software for that matter. Go ahead and
install Linux, if you like, and then check for the gazillion security
updates/patches/fixes for it as well.

Dude, linux is free, if MS want's to start giving away their OS's I'll
gladly stop complaining. Besides, you can't seriously be suggesting that
Linux and Mac Os's are experiencing anywhere near the security problems
that MS does. Macs have always been way more stable.

You're complaining about 'reality' and there is no law that can make
people omniscient nor infallible. Software of any significant
complexity contains bugs and software written to fix bugs will contain
bugs. And it will always be that way was long as there are human
beings involved.

I'm not asking for perfection, I'm just asking for a price that reflects
actual quality of the product. And don't talk to me about complexity,
they choose to build that complexity into the product, it's not required
or necessary. You used to be able to go into your ten line auto exec
batch command and fix boot problems in two minutes. MS just keeps adding
bells and whistles, and every bell and whistle they add is another
potential problem. They choose to integrate Explorer to a rediculous
extent, and Outlook etc. Obviously the Browser didn't need to be
integrated into the OS because other browsers work just fine without such
integration. On and on I could go.

Simple to solve all by your own little lonesome: don't buy upgrade
CDs.

Pay twice as much for the exact same disk.. yeah.

Yep. They give you an break on a new O.S. if you've previously bought
one. Nice of them, don't you think?

Nope, I do not think it's nice of them. Look, I'm using their operating
system either way and they profit form that. It's got nothing to do with
nice. They keep producing crappy OS's with security bugs, which in turn
have to be replaced with the next generation crappy OS. This is their
marketing strategy, not mine.

Basically you're gaming the system by perpetually buying 'upgrade' CDs
and then complaining they don't make it even easier for you to avoid
buying the O.S.

I'm not gaming anything, I'm buying legitimate products that MS chooses
to sell.

Well, while we're going to dictate prices why not declare that no car
shall cost more than 1,000 dollars and TV sets shall be 20 bucks?

Dude, the only reason MS can charge these prices for a messed up OS is
that they have a monopoly that they established illegally.

... you can order a SP2 CD for free, plus shipping and handling.

Dude it's the same disk they released a year ago, you still have to go
online to fully update all the patches.

So when a vulnerability is found you want to remain vulnerable for 6
months, eh?

No, you are vulnerable forever and always with MS products.

With the exception of your arbitrary '6 months' time table they
already do essentially that with the service pack releases.

Again, the SP's are not released every six months, hence the SP "2"
instead of SP4 or 5.

Again, at this point, when you get SP2, you are already one year behind
in patches and upgrades. You have to go online to the last years worth
of patches, if you have a dial up connection your looking at hours and
hours of downloads. Remember, you don't leave dial ups connected all the
time unless you have a second line.

 

[Pdigmking]

Nope you do not have to install 98 at all, I don't really know why
you insist, but go ahead. Installing / upgrading your OS from/over
another is not recommended.

You simply boot with the XP CDROM
Begin the install
You see a notice that you need to put in a legit copy of 98(or what
ever qualifies) in the CDROM
XP install will scan that disk
When it finds what it needs it will prompt you to put back the XP Disk
and it continues to the 'product key' insertion and then on with the
install

Joe

Aaah, OK. Sorry I've been so dense about this.

Paul.

 

[JAD]

Dude, linux is free, if MS want's to start giving away their OS's I'll
gladly stop complaining. Besides, you can't seriously be suggesting that
Linux and Mac Os's are experiencing anywhere near the security problems

that MS does. Macs have always been way more stable.

That has to do with ALLOT more than just the OS

I'm not asking for perfection, I'm just asking for a price that reflects
actual quality of the product.

I paid 89$ dollars for ME years ago, I paid 79$ for XP home, I paid 70
dollars for a game that i had to patch and then finished it in 8 days. I
still use 'ME' today, I couldn't tell you where that game disk is at.

And don't talk to me about complexity,

they choose to build that complexity into the product, it's not required
or necessary. You used to be able to go into your ten line auto exec
batch command and fix boot problems in two minutes. MS just keeps adding
bells and whistles, and every bell and whistle they add is another
potential problem. They choose to integrate Explorer to a rediculous
extent, and Outlook etc. Obviously the Browser didn't need to be
integrated into the OS because other browsers work just fine without such
integration. On and on I could go.



Pay twice as much for the exact same disk.. yeah.


Nope, I do not think it's nice of them. Look, I'm using their operating
system either way and they profit form that. It's got nothing to do with
nice. They keep producing crappy OS's with security bugs, which in turn
have to be replaced with the next generation crappy OS. This is their
marketing strategy, not mine.

Um security 'bugs' are 'exploited' by the element of humanity that thinks
along the same lines as you.
Hate MS at any cost.....
If someone breaks into your house, who do you blame? Everyone but the a-
hole that did the breaking into? How about blaming the intellectuals who
perpetrate the exploits? Crappy OS, well if you are someone who was around
in the DOS days you ought to be ashamed, And if you weren't, you should get
a better perspective. IS ANYTHING PERFECT? is Linux PERFECT? I have been a
linux installer since 1998, that's all you ever get to do, is install it.
Hey BTW "Rush Limpballs" if you have all the answers, get on the
Linux, -going no where train-, and change its direction, cause its been
heading no where with its leaders perpetrating their helter skelter design
attitude.

I'm not gaming anything, I'm buying legitimate products that MS chooses
to sell.


Dude, the only reason MS can charge these prices for a messed up OS is
that they have a monopoly that they established illegally.

Unlike Food stores, Home Improvement centers, Auto parts
stores.............................

Dude it's the same disk they released a year ago, you still have to go
online to fully update all the patches.


No, you are vulnerable forever and always with MS products.

No crooks no vulnerabilities

Again, the SP's are not released every six months, hence the SP "2"
instead of SP4 or 5.

Who cares, it takes a few minutes to get patched from the crooks who write
the crap your complaining about, that infect MS machines. I find this
incredible, that people blame someone's product and their efforts to protect
THEM from CROOKS, rather than the perpetrators. You are barking up the wrong
directory tree. What are you really complaining about? The fact that XP
hinders piracy. If you came up with windows (or whatever) it sure would be
interesting to hear your position then.

 

[sdlomi2]

Nope you do not have to install 98 at all, I don't really know why you
insist, but go ahead. Installing / upgrading your OS from/over another is
not recommended.

You simply boot with the XP CDROM
Begin the install
You see a notice that you need to put in a legit copy of 98(or what ever
qualifies) in the CDROM
XP install will scan that disk
When it finds what it needs it will prompt you to put back the XP Disk
and it continues to the 'product key' insertion and then on with the
install

Joe

Good job, Joe. Sounds like we (you!) have simplified it. Glad Paul,
also, can now enjoy this process . s

 

[Pdigmking]

I paid 89$ dollars for ME years ago, I paid 79$ for XP home, I paid
70
dollars for a game that i had to patch and then finished it in 8 days.
I still use 'ME' today, I couldn't tell you where that game disk is
at.

I paid $35.00 for a photo managing program once. It's alays worked
perfectly. I've got a buch of freeware that's never given me a problem.
..

Um security 'bugs' are 'exploited' by the element of humanity that
thinks along the same lines as you.
Hate MS at any cost.....
If someone breaks into your house, who do you blame? Everyone but the
a- hole that did the breaking into? How about blaming the
intellectuals who perpetrate the exploits? Crappy OS, well if you are
someone who was around in the DOS days you ought to be ashamed, And if
you weren't, you should get a better perspective. IS ANYTHING PERFECT?
is Linux PERFECT? I have been a linux installer since 1998, that's all
you ever get to do, is install it. Hey BTW "Rush Limpballs" if you
have all the answers, get on the Linux, -going no where train-, and
change its direction, cause its been heading no where with its leaders
perpetrating their helter skelter design attitude.

Again with the perfection stuff. No one said anything about wanting a
perfect OS, just a reaonably priced one that can be used safely by most
people.

Sure, people who exploit security holes are responsible for their
behavior, so what? I'm not talking about blaming anyone, I'm talking
about selling a decent product for a reasonable price.

By the way, your the one who's gone whacko over security issues here.
I'm not just talking about security issues. Being able to put an OS that
you've already paid for on your machine without having to go a bunch of
rigamarole. As far as security is concerned, MS could have doen
something simple like.. oh I don't know.. put a fire wall in the program.
I've been using windows since the 80s, I did start with DOS, in fact, I
started with IBMs that had no HD at all. I've never gotten maybe one
virus in all this time. For one thing, I've never used Explorer as my
primary browser. Secondly, for the last five years or so, I've used
firewalls, free ones. Now I've got a router, firewall, anti virus stuff,
and anti spyware scans. Whatever. I'm not complaining so much about
security, it the damn OS.

Win 98 literally eates itself. I had to wipe it three times and re-load
it. Not because it was infected, or because I changed some configeration
or something, it just became unstable and ate itself. That's how I ended
up with XP, which is more stable, but it's got all this crap, you can
never really delete anything, and if you don't auto update you do so at
your risk.

Unlike Food stores, Home Improvement centers, Auto parts
stores.............................

European and US courts have not found home centers, auto parts stores, or
food stores in violation of anti trust laws, they have found MS guilty.
That's just a fact dude. In a truly competitive market place MS would
never be able to charge $200.00 for this OS. Besides, they practically
give it away to large manufacterers. I'm not being rewarded when I get
an upgrade disk for $99.00, I'm being penalized for not buying a new
computer with a OS disk included.

Who cares, it takes a few minutes to get patched from the crooks who
write the crap your complaining about, that infect MS machines. I find
this incredible, that people blame someone's product and their efforts
to protect THEM from CROOKS, rather than the perpetrators. You are
barking up the wrong directory tree. What are you really complaining
about? The fact that XP hinders piracy. If you came up with windows
(or whatever) it sure would be interesting to hear your position then.

XP hinders piracy? Crazy man.

Anyways, as I've already said, we're not talking about a few minutes,
we're talking about hours. And again, yeah, I blame the product when I
pay suggested retail price of $99.00 and the minute I take it out of the
box I have to spend hours downloading patches and updates to make it work
the way it's supposed to in the first place. Actually, I don't spend
hours, I have high speed, but dial ups like my mother in law are in a
different boat. And when it eats itself, the only fix is to eventually
buy the new OS when it comes out because they never made the last one
work the way it was supposed to, and I'm not just talking about security.
To be fair, XP is pretty stable, but weird crap still happens out of the
blue.

Paul.