Confused about todays updates

[Ken1943]

Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
Both were unchecked.
I only have version 4 client installed.
Do I really need them ?

Thanks


KenW

 

[Andy Burns]

Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
Both were unchecked.
I only have version 4 client installed.
Do I really need them ?

Win7 comes *with* framework version 3.5 (and quite possibly versions
1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 too) so if you've also installed version 4.0, you need
both, if you want to be up-to-date.

 

[BillW50]

Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
Both were unchecked.
I only have version 4 client installed.
Do I really need them ?

Thanks


KenW

If you don't have any applications that requires NET4, no. And if you
don't have any applications that use NET period, then you don't need any
version of NET.

 

[Ken1943]

Win7 comes *with* framework version 3.5 (and quite possibly versions
1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 too) so if you've also installed version 4.0, you need
both, if you want to be up-to-date.

Might as well install them. Can't hurt.


KenW

 

[BillW50]

Might as well install them. Can't hurt.


KenW

Never been bitten by updates before, I take it? Anytime you modify an
OS, you have a chance of breaking things like drivers and applications.
And sometimes the whole OS can break.

I believe in experimentation. And I have lots of computers here and I
stopped updating half of them a few years ago. And the ones that I
stopped updating run better than the ones that I religiously update all
of the time. And the ones that I update, I often have to fix it to get
it running again. The ones that isn't updated, continue to run just fine.

There is an old saying that don't fix what isn't broken. But many
continue to fix what isn't broken all of the time and then wonder why
they have problems. ;-)

It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
somebody else and not you.

 

[Andy Burns]

It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
somebody else and not you.

Your attitude to updates is well(?) known

Fine, if you have several computers and can afford to experiment, fubar
the occasional one and form a view on which updates are serious enough
that you need them. But for Joe Bloggs, I suspect taking what the maker
recommends is less likely to end in tears ...

 

[BillW50]

Your attitude to updates is well(?) known

Fine, if you have several computers and can afford to experiment, fubar
the occasional one and form a view on which updates are serious enough
that you need them. But for Joe Bloggs, I suspect taking what the maker
recommends is less likely to end in tears ...

Microsoft also recommended Windows ME, Vista, and MS Bob too. And they
think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15% of the bad stuff)
and Windows Live Mail is all you need. Now if you have any doubts about
Microsoft wisdom at all, I think you should explorer that idea further.

 

[Andy Burns]

Microsoft [...] think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15%
of the bad stuff)

I'd be interested in any reference(s) to support that ...

if you have any doubts about
Microsoft wisdom at all, I think you should explorer that idea further.

If you take that to its logical conclusion, you'd not use Microsoft
software at all.

 

[Ken1943]

Never had any problems with updates.

Never been bitten by updates before, I take it? Anytime you modify an
OS, you have a chance of breaking things like drivers and applications.
And sometimes the whole OS can break.

I believe in experimentation. And I have lots of computers here and I
stopped updating half of them a few years ago. And the ones that I
stopped updating run better than the ones that I religiously update all
of the time. And the ones that I update, I often have to fix it to get
it running again. The ones that isn't updated, continue to run just fine.

There is an old saying that don't fix what isn't broken. But many
continue to fix what isn't broken all of the time and then wonder why
they have problems. ;-)

It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes a
problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant for
somebody else and not you.

KenW

 

[BillW50]

Microsoft [...] think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15%
of the bad stuff)

I'd be interested in any reference(s) to support that ...

I read it on one of the security websites a few days ago. I didn't find
it, but I found this.

Bestsecuritytips found Microsoft only 25% effective.

Microsoft Defender worst rootkit remover?
http://www.bestsecuritytips.com/news+article.storyid+62.htm

If you take that to its logical conclusion, you'd not use Microsoft
software at all.

Why? Just because Microsoft wisdom isn't too bright, doesn't mean that
other are. Luckily I can fix everything they have broken so far. But
then again I have a knack for fixing broken things. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

Never had any problems with updates.

KenW

Perhaps you blamed some other party after the Windows Update. ;-)

 

[Andy Burns]

Microsoft [...] think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15%
of the bad stuff)

Bestsecuritytips found Microsoft only 25% effective.
Microsoft Defender worst rootkit remover?
http://www.bestsecuritytips.com/news+article.storyid+62.htm

Oh, I had rather assumed you were referring to Security Essentials, not
five year old Defender ...

 

[BillW50]

BillW50 wrote:

Microsoft [...] think their AV is hot stuff (which only catches 15%
of the bad stuff)

Bestsecuritytips found Microsoft only 25% effective.
Microsoft Defender worst rootkit remover?
http://www.bestsecuritytips.com/news+article.storyid+62.htm

Oh, I had rather assumed you were referring to Security Essentials, not
five year old Defender ...

Security Essentials wasn't too hot when it first came out. But it has
been getting better and better all of the time. Even almost respectable
nowadays. But geez, how many years does it take for them to get it
right? ;-)

 

[BillW50]

Me either, since Win 95. Billw50's advice is best if ignored.

Alias is one of those "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" people.
Plus Alias is also a Linux zealot and believes a large percentage of
computer users are actually using Linux (even the father of Linux, his
sister and father are using Windows). But I guess that comes with the
territory being part of a small tribe like Alias is. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

Oy vey.

Yup. I bet you are dumb enough to believe without NET, Windows wouldn't
work. Isn't that right Alias?

 

[Boris]

Never been bitten by updates before, I take it? Anytime you modify an
OS, you have a chance of breaking things like drivers and
applications. And sometimes the whole OS can break.

I believe in experimentation. And I have lots of computers here and I
stopped updating half of them a few years ago. And the ones that I
stopped updating run better than the ones that I religiously update
all of the time. And the ones that I update, I often have to fix it to
get it running again. The ones that isn't updated, continue to run
just fine.

There is an old saying that don't fix what isn't broken. But many
continue to fix what isn't broken all of the time and then wonder why
they have problems. ;-)

It is my belief after decades of doing this, is unless an update fixes
a problem you are actually having. Then just skip it. As it is meant
for somebody else and not you.

I agree. Updates have broken my setup too many times, especially .net
updates. I don't update unless having a problem, which is almost never.

 

[BillW50]

No, that isn't right with the exception of Windows 7.

I am sure Windows 7 would run just fine without NET.

 

[BillW50]

I have XP, Windows 7 and Linux installed on different computers and use
each for different purposes. You, as usual, don't know what you're
talking about.

Even if you said you have seen little green men in your bedroom, you
wouldn't be more believable. If you want some credibility, you need to
have some reliable references.

 

[Andrew Rossmann]

Both were for Net Framework, two versions.
Both were unchecked.
I only have version 4 client installed.
Do I really need them ?

The fact that they are out-of-band updates means MS thinks it's a major
issue. You can get the full details here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms11-100.mspx

As mentioned, Vista an Win7 have some versions of .NET pre-installed and
you can't remove them. Just because you think you don't have any
programs that use it doesn't mean you are not vulnerable.

 

[DanS]

Even if you said you have seen little green men in your
bedroom, you wouldn't be more believable. If you want some
credibility, you need to have some reliable references.

References that Alias hasn't had any issues with updating
Windows since Win95?

How praytell, do you think you would be able to get references
for that ?

What are *your* references saying you've been screwed by
updating Windows?

Why are we supposed to believe *you*?

Where are *your* references saying you *shouldn't* update
Windows ?

All I've seen so far is YOUR words...no links, articles,
nothing...and you were the one making the claim that you
shouldn't update.

Do you want pictures of him standing next to multiple
computers each running a different OS as a reliable
reference/proof for *that*.

(And again, you post just insults, and no response to the
content of the post.)