False Event Viewer/WinUpdate messages?

B

Blithe

Vista Ultimate 64X SP2 -

Comparing my Event Viewer messages to my WinUpdate History for today's -
7/16/09 - updates I discovered the following contradictions:

Event Viewer reported the following up dates were unsuitable for my system:

KB905866
KB961371
KB973346

WinUpdate History reported that all of the above were sucessfully installed.

I'd appreciate an authoritive explanation.
Thanks - Blithe
 
J

Jon

Blithe said:
Vista Ultimate 64X SP2 -

Comparing my Event Viewer messages to my WinUpdate History for today's -
7/16/09 - updates I discovered the following contradictions:

Event Viewer reported the following up dates were unsuitable for my
system:

KB905866
KB961371
KB973346

WinUpdate History reported that all of the above were sucessfully
installed.


The 2 don't necessarily contradict. It could imply

1. Warning / Informational messages rather than outright errors
2. Records of previous failed installation attempts prior to the successful
ones

among other possibilities.
 
E

Eric

Blithe said:
Vista Ultimate 64X SP2 -

Comparing my Event Viewer messages to my WinUpdate History for today's -
7/16/09 - updates I discovered the following contradictions:

Event Viewer reported the following up dates were unsuitable for my
system:

KB905866
KB961371
KB973346

WinUpdate History reported that all of the above were sucessfully
installed.

I'd appreciate an authoritive explanation.
Thanks - Blithe
I'd call it a successful "install" if it logged the fact you don't need them
so it skips them next time it checks which updates have been installed.
 
B

Blithe

Thanks Eric - I follow your logic - I fail to see Microsoft's.
Your logic, Eric, would prove abundantly clear to software engineers.
That's 'jargon' logic intended for insiders, professionals, hackers, and
geeks alike. I guess Microsoft does not think to distinguish between the
latter and their lay customers. That's one serious reason why Microsoft
communicates very poorly and why the English language is failing the rest of
us. The 'insiders' are polluting both language and logic. (I mean no
offense - just making an observation)

Blithe
 
E

Eric

Normally only "insiders and professionals" need to care about WinUpdate
History or Event Viewer. Your average "lay customer" doesn't know squat
about the messages in Event Viewer. They don't bother to look at either of
these. If they have a problem they usually ask one of us geeks and we read
the logs to help figure it out. It really doesn't matter to the geek or the
lay user if a KB which does not apply is installed or not. That history is
just for listing the updates to see that all were applied. The Event Viewer
logs are just for finding and fixing problems. I have yet to look at the
Event Viewer on my new PC because I haven't had any problems. It could be
showing any number of 'errors' which may not even matter. Our work
computers have a ton of red critical errors logged, for one program in
particular, but because that program isn't having any problems that users
see we ignore them.

For the most part, Microsoft communicates just fine with the users on what
they need to know and with the geeks on what they need to know. If those
logs didn't make sense to you, chances are you're not one of the geeks. Why
did you care what was in them?
 
B

Blithe

Normally only "insiders and professionals" need to care about WinUpdate
History or Event Viewer.
Eric, I'm assuming that 'normally' means when troubleshooting has not become
an issue owing to some random dysfunction(s) like freezing, sudden
rebooting, or any single or mix of annoyances?

Your average "lay customer" doesn't know squat > about the messages in Event
Viewer.
Eric, I would suggest that you are guessing what level of PC knowledge that
the average lay user possesses. Your assertion might be correct if you were
to have written: 'average inexperienced lay customer' - I suspect that the
level of knowledge of today's average PC consumer/user is much higher than
'squat.'
For the most part, Microsoft communicates just fine with the users on what
they need to know and with the geeks on what they need to know.
For example? When I made my initial attempts to create a peer-to-peer wired
network and ran into difficulties getting the many geeky required OS network
settings to work, did the Microsoft tech writers for the OS online 'help &
support' network troubleshooting section 'communicate just fine' by advising
me - repeatedly - to "contact my network administrator?" Does an Event
Viewer communicate 'just fine' when it records "the last shutdown was
unexpected?" Why do I need to know that - particularly if, as a user, I
repeatedly experience many random, unexpected shutdowns?

If those > logs didn't make sense to you, chances are you're not one of the
geeks. Why
did you care what was in them?

I learned to become a mainframe programming geek on the job, 1967, probably
before hardly any computer science curriculums existed in the Western world
& a few years before IBM had developed any competitive mainframe to sell.
Tech magazines began to publish a few columns about computers in the mid to
late 50's. A few large private corporations saw their promise & began
experimenting with vacuum tube mainframes years before transistors enabled
mainframes to run beyond a 30 to 60 second operation. Still, I do not
consider myself very much of a computer geek. My college major was English
Lit. That's not unusual. I taught computer programming. Graduates in
Liberal Arts often proved to become the most competent programmers.

So, Eric, you seem to think OS program logs were meant to communicate with
geeks only? Frankly, if that's true, that's also unwise. I have nothing
against geeks. Some have created our arts, religion, philosophy, and
science. Geeks, however, who take vain pride in distinguishing themselves
by using jargon only diminish their productive capacity and thereby
undermine the potential of the society that is their support. Making
another observation, it appears your logic has become counter intuitive by
relying upon such a limited concept of what communication is all about. I
began this thread by asking why there is an apparent contradiction between
the Event Viewer/WinUpdate messages.

I think you answered correctly. Did not our exchange prove my point - that
my question would not have been necessary had there been no apparant logical
contradiction between those log messages? Had the messages been properly
written to convey their intention - as you have explained - no
contradictions would have been apparant. Has not this been a waste of my
time & yours = a diminishing of productive capacity = weakening of society's
potential = proving again that Microsoft does a lousy job of communication?

Eric - you might be a very bright fellow but were I to consider hiring you
to profit from any of your special capabilities - you would have to agree to
being reprogrammed on how to properly communicate & think not as an insider
but like the rest of us on the outside.

Good luck - Blithe
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Geeks, however, who take vain pride in distinguishing themselves
by using jargon only diminish their productive capacity and thereby
undermine the potential of the society that is their support. Making
another observation, it appears your logic has become counter intuitive by
relying upon such a limited concept of what communication is all about.

I wonder how you would describe a baseball game without jargon.

"This guy in a funny suit walks up to a little pentagon in the ground and
stands there in front of two guys in different suits. Some guy a couple
dozen feet away throws a little white ball at him, and the guy behind in
the black suit waves his fist in the air. The other guy throws the ball
back to the guy who just threw it, and he throws it back again. The guy
with the stick swings the stick and the ball goes into the audience.
Everybody yells, and the guy drops the stick and runs in a square path past
three little bags and back to the pentagon."

I'd rather say "the pitcher threw a called strike, but the batter hit a
homer on the next pitch".

This analogy is meant to illustrate that jargon is far from the stupid
thing you seem to think it is, and that is used by non-engineers as well.
 
B

Blithe

Definition of 'jargon' from Encarta Dictionary:
"specialist language: language that is used by a particular group,
profession, or culture, especially when the words and phrases are not
understood or used by other people . typesetters' jargon"

OK, Gene, there is more than one way to define 'jargon' - depending upon the
particular type used. For example, texting acronyms like BTW (by the way)
or drug shorthand like NSAID (non steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) - the
former in common use by the PC or cell phone culture - the latter by the
medical and pharmaceutical insiders - help serve to define my issue. My
postings here with Eric, a PC geek (& I consider myself one) - if you
followed the thread closely - were confined to the type of jargon used by
insiders of the PC/profession/culture.

There is jargon for every subject matter - no exceptions. However, I would
suggest to you that your analogy misses far wide of the point that I was
attempting to make. Hardly anyone is an 'insider' when it comes to a
popular sport like baseball - except, perhaps the team members and staff -
ultimate insiders who develop a language of their own that often is not
intended to become public.

If anyone can cite examples of jargon that are not counter productive to
logic, are aids to proper definition, that render more precise
understanding, and in general enhance the purpose of language and good
communication - then I will stand corrected.

Blithe
 
X

xfile

This analogy is meant to illustrate that jargon is far from the stupid
thing you seem to think it is, and that is used by non-engineers as well.

Using jargons is not stupid, at most, it's inconsiderate for people who
don't share the same interest and/or aren't in the same profession (not
necessary in engineering).

Your analogy demonstrated two things:

(1) A twisted sloppy and lengthy description/writing vs. a more precise and
concise one which is not a correct example, in this case, for illustration
purpose, and

(2) Indeed, not everyone knows baseball jargons though it would be much more
than other jargons.

I was taught in school to minimize the use of jargons when communicating
with people not familiar with the profession(s), or at least, don't use it
without first giving a brief explanation.

However, it's a judgment call for each one to determine who are their
audience and what would be a jargon, and that also can part of determining
who is a thoughtful professional, or not.

In any case, it depends on one's goal when communicating, is one trying to
show off or is one trying to make sure the "intended" recipient understood.

No, it's not stupid just inconsiderate, and sometimes, arrogant.
 
B

Blithe

Gene - the individual words you cite as examples of jargon 'fail to compute'
(a commonly used jargon expression that in plain English means - 'makes no
sense').

Undoubtedly, a few of the words you listed may possibly at one time have
been considered jargon. However, jargon, both words and/or expressions,
when such become generally an accepted, recognized part of the language and,
most importantly, when used in the correct context, no longer satisfy the
definition of jargon.

I was lectured about avoiding the use of jargon in my freshman English
class, 1949. If it will make you feel better - I'll stand corrected.
However, I would respectfully suggest you Google for some proper examples of
jargon. I regret my lecturing tone and my failure to communicate to you
what I have always understood how jargon is universally defined, recognized,
and understood.

Here's to better communication & a much faster track to knowledge and
understanding - without jargon

Blithe
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

If anyone can cite examples of jargon that are not counter productive to
logic, are aids to proper definition, that render more precise
understanding, and in general enhance the purpose of language and good
communication -

Velocity; integral; derivative; cosine; f-stop; matrix; depth of field;
capacitance; Lorentz contraction; browser; antipenult; Ritchey-Chretien
telescope; sodium thiosulfate; pluperfect; etc.

Lord, there are tens of thousands of terms and thousands of rules of use. I
just more or less randomly indicated a few from a couple of the fields I
care about ...
then I will stand corrected.

We'll see.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

As I anticipated ("We'll see"), you are going to reject any evidence that
counters your point of view. There is no way we can continue this
"discussion". That word is quoted to indicate that all that's really
happening is that we are stating our respective attitudes; there has been
no discussion.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top