Work slower after updates?

[Paul]

My brother gave up a long time ago and converted to Linux and I never
really understood why until now.

You'd be advised to try Linux for yourself, before deciding it's a good thing.
(Your brother is probably suffering in silence.)

Linux is different, not better.

I know, because I use both. And I actively encourage people to try it,
just so they can see what it's like.

I try to run Linux on less powerful hardware, and that's when you
see more of the rough edges and bad decisions. If you have a
quad core 3GHz machine, maybe you don't notice some of those issues.

And maintenance on Linux, is steady. You do some, every day.

Paul

 

[Allen Drake]

You'd be advised to try Linux for yourself, before deciding it's a good thing.
(Your brother is probably suffering in silence.)

Linux is different, not better.

I know, because I use both. And I actively encourage people to try it,
just so they can see what it's like.

I try to run Linux on less powerful hardware, and that's when you
see more of the rough edges and bad decisions. If you have a
quad core 3GHz machine, maybe you don't notice some of those issues.

And maintenance on Linux, is steady. You do some, every day.

Paul

Thanks for the tip. I will continue to suffer with Windows as I always
have since 3.0 while I wait until the spring for Windows 8.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Allen Drake

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems. I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of

I too haven't done a lot of updates. (I think something I'm doing keeps
turning them off.) But I'm not aware of ever having caught anything (and
I _do_ keep my virus scanner up to date, and occasionally do do a
complete system scan.)

such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install

I'm sure examples do exist; like you I haven't met any, but then we all
have only a limited number of contacts.
[]

many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

Yes: "he hasn't got this one so he needs it" is not analysis; analysis
would be "has has this _application_ which is vulnerable if he doesn't
have this upgrade".

I think the bloat aspect is that upgrades tend to be additional rather
than replacement in nature - they rarely remove anything. Not so much in
disc space - that's cheap these days - but in processing requirement.

See above. Updates that fix holes in Word are NOT needed by those who
don't have Word [there are such people (-:!].
[]

 

[SC Tom]

I don't know what "admin page" is, but I can tell you that if someone
got my boot time down to 45 sec I would kiss that person, regardless of
gender or species.

Mine's not down to 45 seconds, so no kiss necessary, thank you very much

Even after all those "bloated" updates, my older Gateway M-6850fx laptop
takes 57.84 seconds from the boot menu to when I can open Explorer, mail,
etc. I'm running Win7 HP SP1 32-bit w/ 4GB RAM and a 320GB HDD with 246GB
free. I haven't done anything special to it (such as disabling services that
may not be necessary or other tweaks) except disabling UAC (which I also did
in Vista). It is an upgrade install from Vista, and I've never had to reload
it, so whatever was left over from Vista is still there.

My point is that if Alonso is truly seeing a noticeable slowdown (and there
doesn't seem to be any real proof, just a feeling), it's not from the
installed updates, but from something else causing a possible conflict in
his system.

Now if anyone could get my 7-year-old XP desktop to be up and usable in less
than a minute, the kiss offer would be open ;-)

 

[Allen Drake]

In message <[email protected]>, Allen Drake

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems. I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of

I too haven't done a lot of updates. (I think something I'm doing keeps
turning them off.) But I'm not aware of ever having caught anything (and
I _do_ keep my virus scanner up to date, and occasionally do do a
complete system scan.)

such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install

I'm sure examples do exist; like you I haven't met any, but then we all
have only a limited number of contacts.
[]

many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

Yes: "he hasn't got this one so he needs it" is not analysis; analysis
would be "has has this _application_ which is vulnerable if he doesn't
have this upgrade".

I think the bloat aspect is that upgrades tend to be additional rather
than replacement in nature - they rarely remove anything. Not so much in
disc space - that's cheap these days - but in processing requirement.

See above. Updates that fix holes in Word are NOT needed by those who
don't have Word [there are such people (-:!].
[]

These days one has to be very suspicious of information sharing and
marketing of your private data. How many people actually read the
privacy statements before installing Windows version X? If they have
then they know your data IS being shared and passed along just like
your banking privacy statements that no one can refuse to agree with
if they plan on using any bank in this modern world. MS does not care
about your privacy any more then any other entity and can easily use
update process to keep track of what apps you are using and more.

I am not paranoid and neither am I.

 

[Allen Drake]

Mine's not down to 45 seconds, so no kiss necessary, thank you very much

Even after all those "bloated" updates, my older Gateway M-6850fx laptop
takes 57.84 seconds from the boot menu to when I can open Explorer, mail,
etc. I'm running Win7 HP SP1 32-bit w/ 4GB RAM and a 320GB HDD with 246GB
free. I haven't done anything special to it (such as disabling services that
may not be necessary or other tweaks) except disabling UAC (which I also did
in Vista). It is an upgrade install from Vista, and I've never had to reload
it, so whatever was left over from Vista is still there.

My point is that if Alonso is truly seeing a noticeable slowdown (and there
doesn't seem to be any real proof, just a feeling), it's not from the
installed updates, but from something else causing a possible conflict in
his system.

Now if anyone could get my 7-year-old XP desktop to be up and usable in less
than a minute, the kiss offer would be open ;-)

Clone the drive and play with it. Do a clean install and start from
scratch. Put in another drive bay and dual boot to it in your spare
time. You don't have to worry about a thing if you screw it up.

Al.

 

[SC Tom]

Clone the drive and play with it. Do a clean install and start from
scratch. Put in another drive bay and dual boot to it in your spare
time. You don't have to worry about a thing if you screw it up.

Al.

That's an option, I guess. But I kinda feel like Ken does- as long as it's
up and running by the time my morning coffee is done, it's no big deal
Actually, it takes a bit over 2 minutes to be up and usable, so I really
can't complain about that. I had NT machines at work where I could harvest,
roast, grind, and brew my coffee and it STILL wouldn't be fully usable,
IYKWIM.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:10:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.

So yes, there is analyzing. The security updates that you don't have
are the ones that you need. What other analyzing were you expecting?

See above. Updates that fix holes in Word are NOT needed by those who
don't have Word [there are such people (-:!].
[]

These days one has to be very suspicious of information sharing and
marketing of your private data. How many people actually read the
privacy statements before installing Windows version X? If they have
then they know your data IS being shared and passed along just like
your banking privacy statements that no one can refuse to agree with
if they plan on using any bank in this modern world. MS does not care
about your privacy any more then any other entity and can easily use
update process to keep track of what apps you are using and more.

I am not paranoid and neither am I.

Er - I think we're wandering here. The person who thinks the update
system sucks (sorry, who that was has been trimmed by this point) was
suggesting that the upgrade process tends to install all upgrades
whether they're actually needed or not; you (I think it was you)
suggested that there was analysis, but only to see which upgrades you
don't have, not to see which ones you actually need; I agreed with the
first person (that it doesn't check whether you need them, only whether
you've already got them). And then your "paranoia" paragraph. [Not that
they _aren't_ all out to get us (-:!]

 

[Allen Drake]

That's an option, I guess. But I kinda feel like Ken does- as long as it's
up and running by the time my morning coffee is done, it's no big deal
Actually, it takes a bit over 2 minutes to be up and usable, so I really
can't complain about that. I had NT machines at work where I could harvest,
roast, grind, and brew my coffee and it STILL wouldn't be fully usable,
IYKWIM.

Yes I do. This used to happen to me. I would load up every new system
I ever built. Now I have several and use them all for different tasks.
One dedicated just for NLE which requires the most resources of all
the systems I use. I have two new systems, actually three but two that
just sit there doing nothing right now but gathering dust and
collecting updates. Or is it collecting dust and gathering updates? I
think that new 120mm fan I just installed is sucking them in from
somewhere. The floor must be littered with the leftovers from the one
system that hasn't had one in years.

 

[Allen Drake]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:10:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.

So yes, there is analyzing. The security updates that you don't have
are the ones that you need. What other analyzing were you expecting?

See above. Updates that fix holes in Word are NOT needed by those who
don't have Word [there are such people (-:!].
[]

These days one has to be very suspicious of information sharing and
marketing of your private data. How many people actually read the
privacy statements before installing Windows version X? If they have
then they know your data IS being shared and passed along just like
your banking privacy statements that no one can refuse to agree with
if they plan on using any bank in this modern world. MS does not care
about your privacy any more then any other entity and can easily use
update process to keep track of what apps you are using and more.

I am not paranoid and neither am I.

Er - I think we're wandering here. The person who thinks the update
system sucks (sorry, who that was has been trimmed by this point) was
suggesting that the upgrade process tends to install all upgrades
whether they're actually needed or not; you (I think it was you)
suggested that there was analysis, but only to see which upgrades you
don't have, not to see which ones you actually need; I agreed with the
first person (that it doesn't check whether you need them, only whether
you've already got them). And then your "paranoia" paragraph. [Not that
they _aren't_ all out to get us (-:!]

I think that if they are out to get us they would first see if they
need us but I am not totally sure about any of this. I have heard of
some actually being probed in the process of being analyzed so see if
we are actually there in the first place. Maybe.

Al is that you? Yes, I'm here.

 

[Char Jackson]

My point is that if Alonso is truly seeing a noticeable slowdown (and there
doesn't seem to be any real proof, just a feeling), it's not from the
installed updates, but from something else causing a possible conflict in
his system.

I think we're supposed to take his 'feeling' and treat it as fact. ;-)

Now if anyone could get my 7-year-old XP desktop to be up and usable in less
than a minute, the kiss offer would be open ;-)

That's supposed to be a reward? ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

In message <[email protected]>, Allen Drake

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems. I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of

I too haven't done a lot of updates. (I think something I'm doing keeps
turning them off.) But I'm not aware of ever having caught anything (and
I _do_ keep my virus scanner up to date, and occasionally do do a
complete system scan.)

such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install

I'm sure examples do exist; like you I haven't met any, but then we all
have only a limited number of contacts.
[]

many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

Yes: "he hasn't got this one so he needs it" is not analysis; analysis
would be "has has this _application_ which is vulnerable if he doesn't
have this upgrade".

I don't know what you guys are looking for when you say there's no
analysis. It's as simple as a query that says you have a specific
version of Windows installed so you need the following updates, and
you have a (very limited) set of applications installed so you need
the following updates. What additional analysis are you expecting? Are
you looking for updates for your non-Microsoft software? If so, use
something like Secunia Personal Software Inspector. Highly
recommended.

See above. Updates that fix holes in Word are NOT needed by those who
don't have Word [there are such people (-:!].

I always have Word (Office, actually) installed and I appreciate it
being kept patched, but I wasn't aware that systems that don't have it
are also getting its updates.

 

[Char Jackson]

I have also noticed my newest system that I also have not activity
used yet is slowing down after the installations of massive updates.
Now I will be told that these updates have nothing to do with the boot
process but I am seeing this time and time again on new installations
of Win7. Hmmmmm..........

At this point, there's no evidence that it's slowing down, unless I
missed the post where you supplied the original and current timings. A
feeling isn't enough to go on.

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems.

If your system is part of a botnet, what symptoms would you expect to
see? If you said 'none', I'd tend to agree.

I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of
such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install
some where apps will not work without one in particular. I have seen
apps advise you to install an update but IMO there are just to damn
many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

Analyzing to see if there are applications that need windows updates.
What else were you thinking I was referring to. A search to see if you
have all updates in not in any way analyzing anything.

I'm not sure, but I think you're confused. I sincerely doubt there's a
system out there that gets all updates. Instead, your system is
analyzed (oops, there's that word) to see which OS and MS apps you
have. Windows Update knows which updates are available for your OS and
MS apps, so step 2 is to enumerate the updates that you already have.
The ones you DON'T have are queued up for download. Obviously, there
is some analysis going on there. I don't know what else you could call
it. If there wasn't any analysis, you'd get all of the updates for
every OS and every MS app, regardless of whether it's installed or
not.

Like I said show me where anyone can point to an example of a
security breach due to a failure to update.

It's obvious, at the point at which you wrote your challenge above,
that you hadn't been paying ANY attention to computer security over
recent years. Google is your friend, or if you need info handed to you
I suggest alt.comp.anti-virus, which is quite active and will help
bring you up to speed.

 

[Char Jackson]

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince
someone to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process
of preparing a 7 laptop for an elderly and not very computerate []
minimise the change for her!), and I have the feeling that she will
shut it down whenever she's not using it, which I want to discourage
(if only to encourage her to use it more!).

As a thought, make sure Windows is set to hibernate instead of power
down when the physical power button is pressed, when the start menu
power button is clicked, and when the lid is closed.

Ah, I presume "the physical power button" is what Char meant by "the
shutdown button". That would indeed help.

I like where Zaphod took this thread, but I was talking about what you
see when you click Win 7's Start orb. The default is Shutdown, but you
can quickly and easily change the default to any of the other
available options by right clicking on the Taskbar, selecting
properties, then selecting the Start Menu tab, and finally changing
the drop-down action for Power button action.

<http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/change-the-windows-vista-power-buttons-to-shut-down/>
<http://www.gilsmethod.com/how-to-customize-the-windows-7-shut-down-button>

I was thinking if the default were changed to Sleep instead of
Shutdown, then a person would be more likely to use the Sleep function
because they no longer have to hunt for it. In addition, if the PC is
a laptop, it can usually be configured to Sleep every time the lid is
closed.

 

[soup]

I'm off now to find how to make that change: I presume it's in power
management under screensavers under desktop properties

Or in Win7 :-

control panel >power options
"Choose what the power buttons do" option

 

[SC Tom]

I think we're supposed to take his 'feeling' and treat it as fact. ;-)


That's supposed to be a reward? ;-)

Worked for Gene ;-) My girlfriend tells me I'm a good kisser, but then, she
might be biased LOL!!

 

[SC Tom]

In message <[email protected]>, Allen Drake

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems. I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of

I too haven't done a lot of updates. (I think something I'm doing keeps
turning them off.) But I'm not aware of ever having caught anything (and
I _do_ keep my virus scanner up to date, and occasionally do do a
complete system scan.)

such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install

I'm sure examples do exist; like you I haven't met any, but then we all
have only a limited number of contacts.
[]

many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

Yes: "he hasn't got this one so he needs it" is not analysis; analysis
would be "has has this _application_ which is vulnerable if he doesn't
have this upgrade".

I don't know what you guys are looking for when you say there's no
analysis. It's as simple as a query that says you have a specific
version of Windows installed so you need the following updates, and
you have a (very limited) set of applications installed so you need
the following updates. What additional analysis are you expecting? Are
you looking for updates for your non-Microsoft software? If so, use
something like Secunia Personal Software Inspector. Highly
recommended.

So yes, there is analyzing. The security updates that you don't have
are the ones that you need. What other analyzing were you expecting?

See above. Updates that fix holes in Word are NOT needed by those who
don't have Word [there are such people (-:!].

I always have Word (Office, actually) installed and I appreciate it
being kept patched, but I wasn't aware that systems that don't have it
are also getting its updates.

I usually have one or two Office products installed (Word and Excel, and
Access on one machine). A few years ago, I installed Outlook 2003 to test
one of the newsreader add-ons with it since we were going to test it at work
and I wanted to be familiar with it. Then when Win7 came out, I also
installed it on that notebook to have usenet capability. Well, the work
project fell through, and I wasn't real crazy about the program anyhow, so I
uninstalled Outlook from both of my home machines. Even though it is
uninstalled, I still get offered the security updates for Outlook. I don't
install them, and mark them as "Don't remind me. . ." each time they're
available. Since it's Office 2003, I'm sure Microsoft will quit releasing
updates for it sooner or later, and then I won't see them at all, but I
would think that once the product is uninstalled, the updates wouldn't be
offered any more, but I guess there are entries somewhere that notifies them
that "Yep, it's there."

I even tried completely uninstalling Office altogether on my Win7 notebook,
then just installing the items I wanted, but I still get notification for
the Outlook 2003 junk email filter update.