From: "James Silverton" <
[email protected]>
| David wrote to James Silverton on Thu, 14 Jun 2007
| 20:54:07 -0400:
|
DHL>> .
??|>>
??|>> Hi! Under "Widows XP Malicious Updates", my first post was
??|>> on 6/13/07 and there were two more on 6/14/07. The one
??|>> with my time of 11:25 AM gives the details of my usual
??|>> problems with updates. That is not the one that I think
??|>> you are responding to.
??|>>
??|>> Best wishes!
??|>>
??|>> James Silverton
??|>> Potomac, Maryland
??|>>
DHL>> OK. Your terminology is way off and your original post
DHL>> lacked facts. There is nothing "malicious" about the
DHL>> updating process.
|
| Microsoft has not patented the word "malicious" and, IMHO,
| that's just what the process is!
At very least, despite
| attempting for months to get some sort of response, "malicious"
| did it! In previous posts I had given more details.
|
DHL>> Microsoft does use the drive with the MOST free space as
DHL>> the location to temporarily store and execute Windows
DHL>> Updates.
|
| As it does not seem to able to do that, it is probably the
| source of the problem.
|
DHL>> For one thing WinXP does NOT support loading the OS from a
DHL>> USB Flash drive.
|
DHL>> I suggest you do NOT tweak the settings for the System
DHL>> Restore cache other than the capacity of the cache.
|
| I'd be grateful if you could expand the last statement since I
| do not understand the role of the cache in this updating process
| nor was I aware that I had changed the system in any way.. The
| external disc is not a flash drive but an 80meg USB disc that is
| my backup device and there are also 104 meg of free space in the
| D: (system) partition.
|
| My current method for applying updates is to demount the
| external USB, using the Windows "safely remove hardware"
| process, apply the updates, reboot and turn off the monitoring
| of the external disc that invariably is set. Tedious but it does
| work.
|
| James Silverton
| Potomac, Maryland
|
| E-mail, with obvious alterations:
| not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Malicious has a fixed context. MAL - bad. This to be malicious it has to be a process
whose intent confers a deliberate negative consequence.
The term malicious is inappropriate. The Windows Update process in itself is the the exact
opposite of malicious. It is positive in the fact it is designed to take a sytem known to
have insecurities and attempt to make it more secure. Making a system safer and more
secuire can NOT be seemed malicious.
OK. So the drive is a mechanical hard disk in an enclosure that uses USB as an interface to
the PC. It may not be a Flash Drive but for the sense of this discussion, it makes no
difference.
I reread your original post. I now see based upon your replies adn the increased
ingformation that your original post was very bad. You inferred that you received 5 new
Windows Updates and you called these updates malicious. In no way were they malicious and
you assumed that someone would read you post and think the way you did. Sorry, no.
I also don't understand your problem in the original post nor your replies. Many people use
external drives and install Windows Updates with no sequalae. I don't understand why you
should have a problem.
BTW: I do applaud your use of Fidolook although I suggest you update it.
The latest version of Fidolook is...
FL-Build: Fidolook 2006 Xmas Edition (HL) 6.0.2800.95 - 10/2/2007 21:04:35
