MS Security Updates. Are They Mostly For...

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Monica, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. Monica

    Monica Guest

    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
    Monica, Sep 24, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Monica

    BillW50 Guest

    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
    BillW50, Sep 24, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Monica

    RnR Guest

    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 !!!!!
    RnR, Sep 24, 2011
    #3
  4. Monica

    Monica Guest

    Whew! I just knew I was going to be slammed for not keeping MY computer up
    to Micro$oft's specs :eek:
    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 :eek: 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, Sep 24, 2011
    #4
  5. Monica

    Boris Guest

    "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 :eek:
    > 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 :eek: 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.
    Boris, Sep 24, 2011
    #5
  6. Monica

    GrtArtiste Guest

    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
    GrtArtiste, Oct 1, 2011
    #6
  7. Monica

    BillW50 Guest

    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
    BillW50, Oct 1, 2011
    #7
  8. Monica

    Ben Myers Guest

    Re: MS Security Updates. Are They Mostly For...

    On Oct 1, 11:53 am, "BillW50" <> 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
    Ben Myers, Oct 2, 2011
    #8
  9. Monica

    BillW50 Guest

    Re: MS Security Updates. Are They Mostly For...

    In
    news:,
    Ben Myers wrote:
    > On Oct 1, 11:53 am, "BillW50" <> 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
    BillW50, Oct 2, 2011
    #9
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Keith Rozett

    Sound problems (mostly DOS) on P4X400

    Keith Rozett, Jul 9, 2003, in forum: Soyo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    Keith Rozett
    Jul 9, 2003
  2. Darren Yatadooet
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    776
    Ogden Johnson III
    Apr 20, 2004
  3. ke
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,073
  4. Coolasblu
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    394
    Darthy
    Feb 11, 2004
  5. Hammer Toe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    211
Loading...

Share This Page