After getting 8.1 we do what?

On 10 Feb 2014, "BillW50" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you?

Rarely. It still doesn't.

And Windows 98 bugs were okay with you?

They seemed minor at the time.

So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE?

Yes I did, for the new features.,

And how did Windows ME work out for you? Still using it today and
is it running just fine?

I never saw any problems with ME. It was just unnecessary.

And how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs?

Not many. It was half-baked and poorly designed but it worked OK.

And you installed SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP
still booted afterwards?

I'm aware that was a problem for some for a very short time. The bug
was fixed within days.

Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as
you are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses
or damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they
are so unsure of their products? You think they know something
that we don't?

It's not funny at all. There's a similar clause in all software
licenses. It says nothing about the quality of the software.

BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay
with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME
work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And
how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed
SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we don't?

Since 1995 one sole update (IE7) caused a printing problem that required
a restore from a Norton Ghost image. The subsequent IE7 cumulative
update did not cause the printing problem. Beyond that not a single
update for 95, 98, 98SE, XP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Office 97, Office 2000
(aka XP), Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010, Office 2013.
- never ran ME but beta tested it. Vista, the black sheep of MSFT o/s
ran fine with one exception (not update related) it took forever to copy
large files to external devices or over a network using Windows Explorer
(but that was easily rectified by using Vista's command line utility
RoboCopy or using the then current version of Rich Copy)

Office 2003 did require a removal/reinstall due to a corrupt pst profile
but that was not caused by an update but by pebkac.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay
with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME
work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And
how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed
SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.


Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we don't?


I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs say.

--
Blue

On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay
with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME
work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And
how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed
SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable. Some claim
Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs. It sure seems that way
to me. As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike, except for Office 97
crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

Also the last time I checked, XP SP3 was a Windows update. The only
major thing I didn't like about it was it had broken OE6 compacting
(hangs on folders.dbx, says file is in use). But others had far worse
problems, even leaving some machines totally unbootable.

Windows XP SP3 Issues and Fixes Continued
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...o-not-install/

Windows XP SP3 Survey Results
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...3-cheat-sheet/

Now you say you never had a problem with an update. But how many
computers have you updated? Just look at that survey link above. 75%
didn't have a problem with the XP SP3 update, but 24% did! That is one
out of four! That is huge!

I updated thousands of Windows machines. And most of the do turn out
fine. But not always. And anybody who has lots of experience with
updates on a lot of machines knows this is true. Heck large corporations
never blindly install updates on all of their machines at once. No, they
test them on a very small number of them first. If that goes well, they
do another small number, etc.

Heck I am working on this Windows 7 machine right now that never had the
dreaded Blue Screen of Death ever show up. But after the last updates
they started to show up. So I am troubleshooting it right now to see why
that happens? It is random, so it is going to take some time to figure
it out.

Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we don't?

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience. And
one day your luck is going to run out and your false sense of security
is going to stab you right in your back! Then you might feel so burned
that you just might turn into another Linux Zealot.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:47:52 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay
with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME
work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And
how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed
SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable.

I think you're blowing smoke. I used Office 97, 2000, 2003, 2007 (briefly),
2010, and 2013 (briefly). My primary apps are Outlook, Word, and Excel, all
of which run pretty much all of the time that I'm "at work". I can't
remember a single time that one of them crashed. I also can't remember a
single time that a coworker mentioned an Office app crashing or being
unstable. So when you talk about crashes and being unstable, I think the
problem just might be you.

This is normally when you go into chest-pumping mode and remind us that no
one stresses software and hardware more than you do, being the consummate
professional and all, but I think we all know the true story.

Some claim Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs.

"Some claim" the Earth is 6000 years old, too. You can pick a topic out of a
hat and "some" will claim that it's true. You have to look for the truth.

It sure seems that way to me.

So maybe "some" really means "you".

As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike,
except for Office 97 crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

You probably had unresolved PC issues and simply blamed it on the software.
Sometimes it's worthwhile to do real troubleshooting and not just jump to a
conclusion.

I updated thousands of Windows machines.

Here we go again...you and your thousands of Windows machines.

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience.

Face it, if you're the definition of "professional", then all hope is lost.

BillW50 wrote:
On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay
with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME
work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And
how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed
SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable.

I used Office 97 for three years and it was very stable.

Some claim
Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs. It sure seems that way
to me. As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike, except for Office 97
crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

When you used, perhaps.


Also the last time I checked, XP SP3 was a Windows update.

True.

The only
major thing I didn't like about it was it had broken OE6 compacting
(hangs on folders.dbx, says file is in use). But others had far worse
problems, even leaving some machines totally unbootable.

Not my experience and I've installed SP3 dozens of machines. Of course,
unlike you, I knew how to do it properly.


Windows XP SP3 Issues and Fixes Continued
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...o-not-install/


Windows XP SP3 Survey Results
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...3-cheat-sheet/

Now you say you never had a problem with an update. But how many
computers have you updated? Just look at that survey link above. 75%
didn't have a problem with the XP SP3 update, but 24% did! That is one
out of four! That is huge!

I updated thousands of Windows machines.

Thousands?

And most of the do turn out
fine. But not always. And anybody who has lots of experience with
updates on a lot of machines knows this is true. Heck large corporations
never blindly install updates on all of their machines at once. No, they
test them on a very small number of them first. If that goes well, they
do another small number, etc.

Heck I am working on this Windows 7 machine right now that never had the
dreaded Blue Screen of Death ever show up. But after the last updates
they started to show up. So I am troubleshooting it right now to see why
that happens? It is random, so it is going to take some time to figure
it out.

Didn't happen to me on five machines using 7.


Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we don't?

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience.

How do you know that?

And
one day your luck is going to run out and your false sense of security
is going to stab you right in your back! Then you might feel so burned
that you just might turn into another Linux Zealot.


I also use Linux but not for the reason you state.

--
Blue

On 2/11/2014 9:34 AM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:47:52
-0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay
with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME
work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And
how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed
SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable.

I think you're blowing smoke. I used Office 97, 2000, 2003, 2007 (briefly),
2010, and 2013 (briefly). My primary apps are Outlook, Word, and Excel, all
of which run pretty much all of the time that I'm "at work". I can't
remember a single time that one of them crashed. I also can't remember a
single time that a coworker mentioned an Office app crashing or being
unstable. So when you talk about crashes and being unstable, I think the
problem just might be you.

This is normally when you go into chest-pumping mode and remind us that no
one stresses software and hardware more than you do, being the consummate
professional and all, but I think we all know the true story.

Didn't even read those two URLs that I had posted and you didn't quote,
did you? Why do you sound like an intelligent person sometimes and then
suddenly start acting like you are just a two year old? How does that
happen Char?

You are trying to falsely charge that only I have these problems and
then pretend maybe the problem is just me. Yet you totally throw out the
advice from professions who also have experienced the very same thing. I
even listed URLs to prove that point. Heck blind as a bat Char, can't
see that far.

Some claim Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs.

"Some claim" the Earth is 6000 years old, too. You can pick a topic out of a
hat and "some" will claim that it's true. You have to look for the truth.

And you have shown you can't find the truth even if it was right in
front of your face! You don't even believe how using remote desktop
software, the sending machine has to convert the video and compress it,
and so it makes huge demands on the CPU. Any 5 year old child can
understand it, but not Char!

As for the "claim Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs",
anybody using Microsoft Office newsgroups back then heard this from
many, time and time again. Heck even this URL even mentions that Office
2000 is more stable.

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sho...ll=1#post31060

Oh that is right, Char can't see URLs right in front of his face. Well
never mind. :-(

It sure seems that way to me.

So maybe "some" really means "you".

There you go again, throwing the baby out with the bath water!

As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike,
except for Office 97 crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

You probably had unresolved PC issues and simply blamed it on the software.
Sometimes it's worthwhile to do real troubleshooting and not just jump to a
conclusion.

Yeah sure, one out of four computer users, and me right? Didn't you even
find it odd, that there was Outlook 97 and then suddenly there was an
Outlook 98 right away? And as for my earlier statement about Windows ME
stability issues, I am not alone there either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_ME#Criticism

Oh damn, another URL that you can't see. :-( Here I'll paste it in for
you this time.

Windows ME was heavily criticized by some users, mainly for
stability issues. A PC World article dubbed Windows ME the
"Mistake Edition" and placed it 4th in their "Worst Tech
Products of All Time" feature. "Shortly after ME appeared in
late 2000," the article states, "users reported problems
installing it, getting it to run, getting it to work with other
hardware or software, and getting it to stop running."

I updated thousands of Windows machines.

Here we go again...you and your thousands of Windows machines.

How many computers have you worked on for clients over the last few decades?

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience.

Face it, if you're the definition of "professional", then all hope is lost.

Face it Char, if you trust yourself in finding the truth of anything,
you are going to end up at the funny farm.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

On 2/11/2014 9:55 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs were okay with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how did Windows ME work out for you? Still using it today and is it running just fine? And how is Vista working out for you? Never saw any bugs? And you installed SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable.

I used Office 97 for three years and it was very stable.

Sure, was there more than just you that did? Sure there were. Did
everybody but me find Office stable? Nope, some didn't find Office 97
stable at all. Maybe you and others didn't use all of the features in
Office 97. Maybe that is why you found it stable. Some parts were indeed
stable, but some parts were not.

Some claim Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs. It sure seems that way to me. As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike, except for Office 97 crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

When you used, perhaps.

Naw, it was all over the Microsoft Office newsgroups back then. Even
this post mentions Office 2000 being said to be more stable.

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sho...ll=1#post31060

And you don't find it odd that Microsoft quickly released Outlook 98 to
replace Outlook 97? Why did they do that if Outlook 97 was stable (as
you say) in the first place? And why did Microsoft drop Office 97
support so fast (ended in 2002)? And why did Microsoft support Office
2000 last for so long (ended in 2009)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micros...#Compatibility

Also the last time I checked, XP SP3 was a Windows update.

True.

Then why did you claim: "All the above has nothing to do with Windows
Updates" for? That was one of them.

The only major thing I didn't like about it was it had broken OE6 compacting (hangs on folders.dbx, says file is in use). But others had far worse problems, even leaving some machines totally unbootable.

Not my experience and I've installed SP3 dozens of machines. Of course,
unlike you, I knew how to do it properly.

Really? Bold claim considering both Microsoft and HP were pointing
fingers whose fault it was. Yet none of them claimed that somebody
didn't install it right. So what makes you right and everybody else
wrong? Are you claiming you are a god? If so, which one?

Windows XP SP3 Issues and Fixes Continued
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...o-not-install/

Windows XP SP3 Survey Results
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...3-cheat-sheet/

Now you say you never had a problem with an update. But how many
computers have you updated? Just look at that survey link above. 75%
didn't have a problem with the XP SP3 update, but 24% did! That is one
out of four! That is huge!

I updated thousands of Windows machines.

Thousands?

Yes, some of my clients I had since the early 80's.

And most of the do turn out fine. But not always. And anybody who has lots of experience with updates on a lot of machines knows this is true. Heck large corporations never blindly install updates on all of their machines at once. No, they test them on a very small number of them first. If that goes well, they do another small number, etc.

Heck I am working on this Windows 7 machine right now that never had the
dreaded Blue Screen of Death ever show up. But after the last updates
they started to show up. So I am troubleshooting it right now to see why
that happens? It is random, so it is going to take some time to figure
it out.

Didn't happen to me on five machines using 7.

Seven? Is that all? I have 30+ machines right in this single room. And I
would say at least 20 of them never had a single problem with updates at
all. Yes that happens. Although the more you do, the more your luck will
end eventually. It is the law of averages. Heard of that one before?

Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we don't?

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs
say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience.

How do you know that?

Because you never had a problem with any Windows update. Plus any real
professional would never claim updates always go flawlessly. And you
used the claim that you know how to install updates correctly. All of
this point to you are a small time amateur.

And one day your luck is going to run out and your false sense of security is going to stab you right in your back! Then you might feel so burned that you just might turn into another Linux Zealot.

I also use Linux but not for the reason you state.

Naw... I was just being facetious. I do that from time to time. ;-) And
the point that I was making was one day you are going to run into an
update that will fail you. Then you will become a believer. And then
some smart ass out there is going to say to you they never had a problem
with updates, and then history repeats itself again.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

BillW50 wrote:
On 2/11/2014 9:55 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs
were okay with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how
did Windows ME work out for you? Still using it today and is it
running just fine? And how is Vista working out for you? Never saw
any bugs? And you installed SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine
and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I
never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable.

I used Office 97 for three years and it was very stable.

Sure, was there more than just you that did? Sure there were. Did
everybody but me find Office stable? Nope, some didn't find Office 97
stable at all. Maybe you and others didn't use all of the features in
Office 97. Maybe that is why you found it stable. Some parts were indeed
stable, but some parts were not.

It was stable for my usage.


Some claim Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs. It sure
seems that way to me. As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike,
except for Office 97 crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

One would assume that a new version would be better.


When you used, perhaps.

Naw, it was all over the Microsoft Office newsgroups back then. Even
this post mentions Office 2000 being said to be more stable.

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sho...ll=1#post31060


And you don't find it odd that Microsoft quickly released Outlook 98 to
replace Outlook 97? Why did they do that if Outlook 97 was stable (as
you say) in the first place? And why did Microsoft drop Office 97
support so fast (ended in 2002)? And why did Microsoft support Office
2000 last for so long (ended in 2009)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micros...#Compatibility

I didn't use Outlook back then so I wouldn't know if it caused problems.


Also the last time I checked, XP SP3 was a Windows update.

True.

Then why did you claim: "All the above has nothing to do with Windows
Updates" for? That was one of them.

Because you didn't mention XP SP3.


The only major thing I didn't like about it was it had broken OE6
compacting (hangs on folders.dbx, says file is in use). But others
had far worse problems, even leaving some machines totally unbootable.

Not my experience and I've installed SP3 dozens of machines. Of course,
unlike you, I knew how to do it properly.

Really? Bold claim considering both Microsoft and HP were pointing
fingers whose fault it was. Yet none of them claimed that somebody
didn't install it right. So what makes you right and everybody else
wrong? Are you claiming you are a god? If so, which one?

No, I did my research and that research did not include newsgroups or
forums. Once I learned the trick, installed SP3 was "next, next, next".


Windows XP SP3 Issues and Fixes Continued
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...o-not-install/


Windows XP SP3 Survey Results
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...3-cheat-sheet/

Now you say you never had a problem with an update. But how many
computers have you updated? Just look at that survey link above. 75%
didn't have a problem with the XP SP3 update, but 24% did! That is one
out of four! That is huge!

I updated thousands of Windows machines.

Thousands?

Yes, some of my clients I had since the early 80's.

That doesn't mean you updated thousands. That merely states how long
you've been ****ing up computers.


And most of the do turn out fine. But not always. And anybody who has
lots of experience with updates on a lot of machines knows this is
true. Heck large corporations never blindly install updates on all of
their machines at once. No, they test them on a very small number of
them first. If that goes well, they do another small number, etc.

Heck I am working on this Windows 7 machine right now that never had the
dreaded Blue Screen of Death ever show up. But after the last updates
they started to show up. So I am troubleshooting it right now to see why
that happens? It is random, so it is going to take some time to figure
it out.

Didn't happen to me on five machines using 7.

Seven?

I wrote five, not seven.

Is that all? I have 30+ machines right in this single room. And I
would say at least 20 of them never had a single problem with updates at
all.

I don't believe you.

Yes that happens. Although the more you do, the more your luck will
end eventually. It is the law of averages. Heard of that one before?

Yep, and, on average, most people, even newbies, have no problems with
updates.


Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we don't?

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs
say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience.

How do you know that?

Because you never had a problem with any Windows update.

LOL!

Plus any real
professional would never claim updates always go flawlessly.

Unless they do.

And you
used the claim that you know how to install updates correctly. All of
this point to you are a small time amateur.

I used my first computer in 1968.


And one day your luck is going to run out and your false sense of
security is going to stab you right in your back! Then you might feel
so burned that you just might turn into another Linux Zealot.

I also use Linux but not for the reason you state.

Naw... I was just being facetious. I do that from time to time. ;-)

How cute.

And
the point that I was making was one day you are going to run into an
update that will fail you. Then you will become a believer. And then
some smart ass out there is going to say to you they never had a problem
with updates, and then history repeats itself again.


I just updated all five computers. Went like silk.

--
Blue

On 2/11/2014 1:25 PM, Jim wrote:
Thousand of this, thousands of that. You have had hundreds of
computers, dozens of tablets. I think your name should be Bull****
Bill!

I don't have thousands of computers and dozens of tablets. I have over
30 computers (at last count) and about a dozen tablets. Although I have
serviced thousands of computers and serviced dozens of tablets if that
is what you mean.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

On 2/11/2014 1:43 PM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
On 2/11/2014 9:55 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
On 2/11/2014 7:29 AM, Blue wrote: BillW50 wrote:
"Blue" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:
I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and never had a problem
with
Windows or Microsoft products updates. I just installed Win 8.1 and
there were a whole lot of updates but it went like silk with no
problems.

Really? MS Office 97 never crashed on you? And Windows 98 bugs
were okay with you? So you didn't bother purchasing 98SE? And how
did Windows ME work out for you? Still using it today and is it
running just fine? And how is Vista working out for you? Never saw
any bugs? And you installed SP3 on your HP AMD processor XP machine
and XP still booted afterwards?

All the above has nothing to do with Windows Updates. That said, I
never
had problems with any version. I never used Vista and I never buy OEM
computers like an HP. Personally, I preferred Me over Win 98 and can't
understand all the uproar over it.

Bull! Office 97 updates just made things more unstable.

I used Office 97 for three years and it was very stable.

Sure, was there more than just you that did? Sure there were. Did
everybody but me find Office stable? Nope, some didn't find Office 97
stable at all. Maybe you and others didn't use all of the features in
Office 97. Maybe that is why you found it stable. Some parts were indeed
stable, but some parts were not.

It was stable for my usage.

I am sure it was. Some are perfectly happy using WordPad as their word
processor too. But some need something more.

Some claim Office 2000 was released to fix Office 97 bugs. It sure
seems that way to me. As Office 97 and 2000 are very much alike,
except for Office 97 crashes a lot and 2000 is very stable.

One would assume that a new version would be better.

One would hope anyway. Although that isn't the case for some.

When you used, perhaps.

Naw, it was all over the Microsoft Office newsgroups back then. Even
this post mentions Office 2000 being said to be more stable.

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sho...ll=1#post31060

And you don't find it odd that Microsoft quickly released Outlook 98 to
replace Outlook 97? Why did they do that if Outlook 97 was stable (as
you say) in the first place? And why did Microsoft drop Office 97
support so fast (ended in 2002)? And why did Microsoft support Office
2000 last for so long (ended in 2009)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micros...#Compatibility

I didn't use Outlook back then so I wouldn't know if it caused problems.

Then why do you criticize those that did have problems? Outlook 97 was
the most buggiest application of the lot. And what did Microsoft do?
Forget updates, here is a new version of Outlook that actually works.

Also the last time I checked, XP SP3 was a Windows update.

True.

Then why did you claim: "All the above has nothing to do with Windows
Updates" for? That was one of them.

Because you didn't mention XP SP3.

Oh maybe, but the signs were there for anybody who had experience. AMD
and XP SP3 not booting after the upgrade was a dead giveaway. Everybody
was talking about it.

The only major thing I didn't like about it was it had broken OE6
compacting (hangs on folders.dbx, says file is in use). But others
had far worse problems, even leaving some machines totally unbootable.

Not my experience and I've installed SP3 dozens of machines. Of course,
unlike you, I knew how to do it properly.

Really? Bold claim considering both Microsoft and HP were pointing
fingers whose fault it was. Yet none of them claimed that somebody
didn't install it right. So what makes you right and everybody else
wrong? Are you claiming you are a god? If so, which one?

No, I did my research and that research did not include newsgroups or
forums. Once I learned the trick, installed SP3 was "next, next, next".

Then why did Microsoft and HP start pointing fingers at each other? Then
why did .PC Pitstop say news flash, do not install? Everybody was
talking about wait, do not install until Microsoft gets everything
worked out. You never got the memo?

Windows XP SP3 Issues and Fixes Continued
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...o-not-install/

Windows XP SP3 Survey Results
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...3-cheat-sheet/

Now you say you never had a problem with an update. But how many
computers have you updated? Just look at that survey link above. 75%
didn't have a problem with the XP SP3 update, but 24% did! That is one
out of four! That is huge!

I updated thousands of Windows machines.

Thousands?

Yes, some of my clients I had since the early 80's.

That doesn't mean you updated thousands. That merely states how long
you've been ****ing up computers.

Oh now I am f*&%ing computing. Cute!

And most of the do turn out fine. But not always. And anybody who has
lots of experience with updates on a lot of machines knows this is
true. Heck large corporations never blindly install updates on all of
their machines at once. No, they test them on a very small number of
them first. If that goes well, they do another small number, etc.

Heck I am working on this Windows 7 machine right now that never had the dreaded Blue Screen of Death ever show up. But after the last updates they started to show up. So I am troubleshooting it right now to see why that happens? It is random, so it is going to take some time to figure it out.

Didn't happen to me on five machines using 7.

Seven?

I wrote five, not seven.

Five using Windows 7, yes. What happened to the earlier versions? And my
other Windows 7 machines are doing fine with updates. And so is Windows
8 on this same machine. But Windows 7 updates seem to be a problem only
on this one, why is that? I personally think it is drivers, but what do
you think?

Is that all? I have 30+ machines right in this single room. And I
would say at least 20 of them never had a single problem with updates at
all.

I don't believe you.

That is okay, I don't believe you either. Your claims don't match the
real world at all.

Yes that happens. Although the more you do, the more your luck will
end eventually. It is the law of averages. Heard of that one before?

Yep, and, on average, most people, even newbies, have no problems with
updates.

IT people isn't average, eh? And I know lots of newbies who were burned
by updates. Just because you don't know any of them doesn't mean they
don't exist.

Funny, Microsoft in their license agreement isn't as assuring as you
are. Because they claim they are not responsible for any loses or
damages that are caused by their software. I wonder why they are so
unsure of their products? You think they know something that we
don't?

I've never had problems with Windows Updates or Microsoft Updates
regardless of the EULA that says about the same thing as other EULAs
say.

That is because you are not a professional with lots of experience.

How do you know that?

Because you never had a problem with any Windows update.

LOL!

And you laugh at all of the IT people who know better and all of the
Microsoft and HP people pointing fingers. How cute.

Plus any real professional would never claim updates always go flawlessly.

Unless they do.

You believe Microsoft code is flawless and never made mistakes and never
made an update that could fail? What planet are you from?

And you used the claim that you know how to install updates correctly. All of this point to you are a small time amateur.

I used my first computer in 1968.

And what was that computer's make and model number? I too first used a
computer back in '68, but it wasn't anything to get excited about. Oh in
'68 it was. But a few years later it was nothing to talk about.

And one day your luck is going to run out and your false sense of
security is going to stab you right in your back! Then you might feel
so burned that you just might turn into another Linux Zealot.

I also use Linux but not for the reason you state.

Naw... I was just being facetious. I do that from time to time. ;-)

How cute.

And the point that I was making was one day you are going to run into an update that will fail you. Then you will become a believer. And then some smart ass out there is going to say to you they never had a problem with updates, and then history repeats itself again.

I just updated all five computers. Went like silk.

Some people who sees a piece of paper inside of a fuse that says good,
is good too (inside story about a recent post I made today). And yeah, I
have at least 20 computers right in this very room I could claim the
same, big deal! That is just peanuts compared to the big picture.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1