MS Security Updates. Are They Mostly For...

Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically install
them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install important
updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these Window 7
security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather not install
them and risk computer glitches.
Thanks

On 9/24/2011 12:54 PM, Monica wrote:
> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
> computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically
> install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install
> important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these
> Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather
> not install them and risk computer glitches.
> Thanks

I know I might regret saying this. But I have some computers that I
never update and some I always update (well I skip the latest IE
updates). And the ones that I never update have far less compatibility
issues with some applications. I also have been running Windows since
'93 and I never had a virus on any of my computers yet. YMMV

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:12:30 -0500, BillW50 <> wrote:

>On 9/24/2011 12:54 PM, Monica wrote:
>> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
>> computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically
>> install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install
>> important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these
>> Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather
>> not install them and risk computer glitches.
>> Thanks
>
>I know I might regret saying this. But I have some computers that I
>never update and some I always update (well I skip the latest IE
>updates). And the ones that I never update have far less compatibility
>issues with some applications. I also have been running Windows since
>'93 and I never had a virus on any of my computers yet. YMMV


I agree with you Bill. I hate the updates and currently have them on
this laptop but not on others. I need to recheck this laptop because
I could have sworn I have them turned off but on occasion it forces
them on me upon shut down / reboot. .... okay I checked and I have
them to never check for updates but on the bottom of the screen it
says .... Windows Update might automatically update itself when
checking for other updates. What other updates are they talking of?
Bottom line is I don't want updates at all !!!!!

Whew! I just knew I was going to be slammed for not keeping MY computer up
to Micro$oft's specs
I don't do them either. Every great once in awhile if I feel like I'm
having a problem and can identify what the update does, I'll make a
selection or two. And except for a couple of stupid human errors of late,
I've never had a computer crash or a virus (wait, I've had one) and my
systems have always been snappy and responsive. IN FACT, and I hate to say
this, my XP machine of three years opened programs faster than the new one.
I've yet to install anything like Photoshop. I've got my Startup folder
down to just what I need and some services placed in manual or disabled that
were automatic. I'm a bit disappointed that it's not as fast as my old
computer I know there is a bottleneck due to processor speed and a
7200rpm hdd but spending thousands on a solid state drive is NOT an option!
Hope I can figure out what to do to speed things up.

"RnR" wrote in message news:...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:12:30 -0500, BillW50 <> wrote:

>On 9/24/2011 12:54 PM, Monica wrote:
>> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
>> computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically
>> install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install
>> important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these
>> Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather
>> not install them and risk computer glitches.
>> Thanks
>
>I know I might regret saying this. But I have some computers that I
>never update and some I always update (well I skip the latest IE
>updates). And the ones that I never update have far less compatibility
>issues with some applications. I also have been running Windows since
>'93 and I never had a virus on any of my computers yet. YMMV


I agree with you Bill. I hate the updates and currently have them on
this laptop but not on others. I need to recheck this laptop because
I could have sworn I have them turned off but on occasion it forces
them on me upon shut down / reboot. .... okay I checked and I have
them to never check for updates but on the bottom of the screen it
says .... Windows Update might automatically update itself when
checking for other updates. What other updates are they talking of?
Bottom line is I don't want updates at all !!!!!

"Monica" <> wrote in
news:r1rfq.9437$:

> Whew! I just knew I was going to be slammed for not keeping MY
> computer up to Micro$oft's specs
> I don't do them either. Every great once in awhile if I feel like I'm
> having a problem and can identify what the update does, I'll make a
> selection or two. And except for a couple of stupid human errors of
> late, I've never had a computer crash or a virus (wait, I've had one)
> and my systems have always been snappy and responsive. IN FACT, and I
> hate to say this, my XP machine of three years opened programs faster
> than the new one. I've yet to install anything like Photoshop. I've
> got my Startup folder down to just what I need and some services
> placed in manual or disabled that were automatic. I'm a bit
> disappointed that it's not as fast as my old computer I know there
> is a bottleneck due to processor speed and a 7200rpm hdd but spending
> thousands on a solid state drive is NOT an option! Hope I can figure
> out what to do to speed things up.
>
> "RnR" wrote in message
> news:...
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:12:30 -0500, BillW50 <> wrote:
>
>>On 9/24/2011 12:54 PM, Monica wrote:
>>> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let
>>> my computers automatically check for updates, much less
>>> automatically install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need
>>> to install important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if
>>> most of these Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru
>>> IE, I'd rather not install them and risk computer glitches.
>>> Thanks
>>
>>I know I might regret saying this. But I have some computers that I
>>never update and some I always update (well I skip the latest IE
>>updates). And the ones that I never update have far less compatibility
>>issues with some applications. I also have been running Windows since
>>'93 and I never had a virus on any of my computers yet. YMMV
>
>
> I agree with you Bill. I hate the updates and currently have them on
> this laptop but not on others. I need to recheck this laptop because
> I could have sworn I have them turned off but on occasion it forces
> them on me upon shut down / reboot. .... okay I checked and I have
> them to never check for updates but on the bottom of the screen it
> says .... Windows Update might automatically update itself when
> checking for other updates. What other updates are they talking of?
> Bottom line is I don't want updates at all !!!!!
>
>

I generally don't do updates on my many machines, especially security
updates. I will select updates that I think are necessary when I install
or configure a new OS. I do have Windows update set to find updates,
because I'm curious, but I carefully select what I want to install. I
generally don't install security updates. I have one machine that I
don't even have any anti-malware/virus programs installed on, and it has
never suffered any malware/viruses.

I do have Microsoft Security Essentials installed on some machines. I'm
very inconsistent about how I protect/update my machines, and yet I've
never had any problems.

On 09/24/2011 01:54 PM, Monica wrote:
> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
> computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically
> install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install
> important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these
> Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather
> not install them and risk computer glitches.
> Thanks

I have a 4+ yr old Dell XPS 400 and I've installed every
important and recommended update offered (no driver updates
though). I have not had a problem that I could knowingly blame
on an update and XP still runs just as well as when new.
YMMV.

GrtArtiste

In news:j673gp$75s$,
GrtArtiste wrote:
> On 09/24/2011 01:54 PM, Monica wrote:
>> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
>> computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically
>> install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install
>> important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these
>> Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather
>> not install them and risk computer glitches.
>> Thanks
>
> I have a 4+ yr old Dell XPS 400 and I've installed every
> important and recommended update offered (no driver updates
> though). I have not had a problem that I could knowingly blame
> on an update and XP still runs just as well as when new.
> YMMV.
>
> GrtArtiste

Are you sure it isn't just your perception? As you probably wouldn't
notice a fraction of a second shaved off twice a month. And thus it
could be getting slower and slower and you wouldn't even realize it.

And wouldn't your claim actually break some physical law? As updates
doesn't make the OS smaller (although I wish it did), but actually it
gets larger and larger. For example, I installed Windows 2000 on one of
my netbooks as an experiment recently. And the Windows folder was less
than 700MB in size before updates and grew to a whopping 2.1GB after
updates. And it runs slower and boots slower and uses more memory too.
Same sort of thing happens with XP, Vista, and Windows 7 too.

Also consider the original minimum for XP SP0:

Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk

Now try installing XP SP3 install CD on such a machine. It won't fit,
install, or even run.

Then many usually run into another problem. With millions of lines of
code and making one single change can often break something. And what
usually breaks is one or more drivers. Then the blame game goes on. The
OEM manufacture blames Microsoft. And Microsoft blames the manufacture
for not following the rules. While the real truth is somewhere between.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On Oct 1, 11:53*am, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:j673gp$75s$,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GrtArtiste wrote:
> > On 09/24/2011 01:54 PM, Monica wrote:
> >> Internet Explorer? I'm not a fan of MS updates and have never let my
> >> computers automatically check for updates, much less automatically
> >> install them. Before I tweak Services I probably need to install
> >> important updates. I don't use Internet Explorer so if most of these
> >> Window 7 security updates are for vulnerabilities thru IE, I'd rather
> >> not install them and risk computer glitches.
> >> Thanks
>
> > I have a 4+ yr old Dell XPS 400 and I've installed every
> > important and recommended update offered (no driver updates
> > though). I have not had a problem that I could knowingly blame
> > on an update and XP still runs just as well as when new.
> > YMMV.
>
> > GrtArtiste
>
> Are you sure it isn't just your perception? As you probably wouldn't
> notice a fraction of a second shaved off twice a month. And thus it
> could be getting slower and slower and you wouldn't even realize it.
>
> And wouldn't your claim actually break some physical law? As updates
> doesn't make the OS smaller (although I wish it did), but actually it
> gets larger and larger. For example, I installed Windows 2000 on one of
> my netbooks as an experiment recently. And the Windows folder was less
> than 700MB in size before updates and grew to a whopping 2.1GB after
> updates. And it runs slower and boots slower and uses more memory too.
> Same sort of thing happens with XP, Vista, and Windows 7 too.
>
> Also consider the original minimum for XP SP0:
>
> Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
> At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
> At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
>
> Now try installing XP SP3 install CD on such a machine. It won't fit,
> install, or even run.
>
> Then many usually run into another problem. With millions of lines of
> code and making one single change can often break something. And what
> usually breaks is one or more drivers. Then the blame game goes on. The
> OEM manufacture blames Microsoft. And Microsoft blames the manufacture
> for not following the rules. While the real truth is somewhere between.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
> Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

"Also consider the original minimum for XP SP0:

Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is
recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk ."

I doubt that the original XP could fit on a 1.5GB hard drive and run
in 64MB. What you have here is the usual Microsoft hype,
disinformation and bull manure that for years has rivaled the old
Soviet politburo. I'm not dumb enough to dig an 233MHz Pentium out of
a landfill and try to install XP, either.

The best tools I have found for managing Windows bloat from updates
are CCleaner (have it remove the hotfixes) and Disk Cleanup (delete
all restore points). Of course, one should only do these cleanups
when just about 100% certain that the system has no gremlins, malware,
or viruses except for Windows itself... Ben Myers

In
news:04dc08c3-28f7-4041-9bc6-,
Ben Myers wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:53 am, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
>> Innews:j673gp$75s$,
>
> "Also consider the original minimum for XP SP0:
>
> Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is
> recommended)
> At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
> At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk ."
>
> I doubt that the original XP could fit on a 1.5GB hard drive and run
> in 64MB. What you have here is the usual Microsoft hype,
> disinformation and bull manure that for years has rivaled the old
> Soviet politburo. I'm not dumb enough to dig an 233MHz Pentium out of
> a landfill and try to install XP, either.

Yeah Microsoft had taken a lot of heat about that back then. Although in
my experience it would indeed install and fit. But calling it running
might be a bit of a stretch. As it is more like crawling. But it wasn't
just Microsoft, lots of others were playing the same game. Nowadays I
don't know of secret lawsuits or whatever, but now everybody seems to
claim more than you really need.

The least RAM I think I ever tried XP was 256MB. And I wasn't too
impressed to say the least. Although years ago I remember reading that
XP uses different files for under 128MB of RAM. So I never saw how this
low RAM install of XP actually works.

I do have two Toshiba 2595XDVD from '99 up on the shelf if there is
enough curiosity. They both have 64MB on the motherboard and 128MB in
the only RAM slot (the highest the specs claim it can handle). And sport
a Celeron 400MHz which probably would make for a pretty good test for XP
under low RAM conditions. And a Celeron 400MHz isn't too much different
than a 233Mhz Pentium. So this might be a good test by removing the
128MB RAM card.

Many of my laptops use either SpeedStep (Intel) or PowerNow (AMD). And I
have them set to switch clock speeds automatically. And many of them
normally run XP at 1GHz or less. Of course when they need more CPU
power, they clock up. So it is a little hard to judge while it can shift
speeds at anytime. But watching a clock speed graph, normally it is
running at the slowest clock speed and XP runs well.

A better example is my netbooks which has Celeron 900Mhz and under
clocked at 633Mhz. With an utility you can crank them back up to 900MHz.
Although performance isn't a big deal between 633MHz and 900MHz to be
honest with you. Yes they are a tad faster at 900MHz, but not much to
write home about. They all have 2GB of RAM, so that makes the biggest
difference. If they had 512MB of RAM, 900MHz CPU speed might be a bigger
deal.

> The best tools I have found for managing Windows bloat from updates
> are CCleaner (have it remove the hotfixes) and Disk Cleanup (delete
> all restore points). Of course, one should only do these cleanups
> when just about 100% certain that the system has no gremlins, malware,
> or viruses except for Windows itself... Ben Myers

Sounds like a good idea to me. It is funny, as popular and long running
XP is, I can't find any minimum requirements for XP plus whatever
Service Pack. I don't recall XP SP1 as being a big deal. Although XP SP2
was a huge deal! I tried upgrading 7 XP SP1 computers to SP2 and it
never worked well. Actually some complained it caused crashes and such,
I didn't see any of that. What I saw was a 20 to 40% performance hit. I
hated SP2!

That was until I used a XP install disc with SP2. Wow! What a huge
difference! As XP SP2 wasn't slow anymore. So the secret seemed to be to
use a XP SP2 install disc. SP3 was another do nothing Service Pack IMHO.
There was nothing new as far as features and actually broke a few
applications. I have some computers with XP SP2 and XP SP3. And if I had
to do it all over again, I think I would skip SP3.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3