Chuck
You're right...it was me. I did say that and till today, I'm just so beaten
by that experience. Losing a user profile all of a sudden leaves you cold
and unprepared. And with that, a lot of my documents also went missing. No
one could explain why. Checked the forums and there were some people who
experienced the same thing but no viable solution. It was very frustrating.
Take for example Winz SP2. Well I certainly wasn't blase enough to ignore
that one but guess what....there was apparently an undocumented requirement
that you have to install the Svc Pack for Winz before you install Office.
Huh??? Yes, it happened to be true. Wasn't written anywhere that I could
recall. So I blindly added SP2 when it was available to at least half the
number of client PCs at the law firm before I realise disaster had
struck...because the PCs were already installed with Office XP. After that
completely WEIRD things happened with Office apps like Word.
As the OS gets more complicated and with many more utilities running in the
background, updates are dangerous if none of us know what they're about. As
someone once said, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." For me, this is so
true.
Sorry Chuck, I'm not looking for an argument here but my personal
experiences with updates that cost me a completely missing user profile
wasn't funny and I sure don't want any such thing to happen to me (again) or
my users. Sometimes I do wish for the simplicity of DOS. Those, might be
dark days for some, but for me, I can see some perverse sense of peace.
K.
On 24/05/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Anyhow, it wasn't me that was refusing to install fixes under auto
> update. I think that was Khen and I think not choosing auto update is
> dangerous. Many years ago I would have given totally different advice.
> The rules used to be don't update and take a fix for any bug that
> isn't actually causing you a problem. The reason is that small bug
> fixes and incremental changes may not be well designed and well tested.
> In particular, they many not be rigorously system tested to check for
> possible adverse interactions with other parts of the system. Any bug
> fixes or feature adds are quite likely to introduce an unknown bug in
> place of a few known ones that get fixed.
>
> But the rules are different today. I think the vast majority of bug
> fixes I've gotten have to do with security problems. Fix the XYZ buffer
> overflow problem or sneaky nerds will break in and take over your life.
> The problem is that this *is* a problem that could likely affect you
> and the consequences can be dire. Therefore, the risk of adding another
> unknown bug is, as Jack Aubrey was fond of saying, "just the lesser of
> two weevils".
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> Moose wrote:
> > Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> >> And even two years late Vista still isn't completely ready yet for
> prime
> >> time.
> >>
> > As long as we are being anecdotal....
> >
> > We know all apps, including OSs, are full of bugs, it's simply
> > inevitable. In fact, aren't you the one who quoted statistics on that?
> > So why would one not want to install the fixes to those that turn out to
> > be causing trouble? I know you didn't suggest avoiding them, but
> > someone(s) else in this thread did.
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people" - Emily
Cox
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|