| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/9/2009 2:39:59 PM | I did so about six months ago, got tired of constantly getting notifications to update XP, and the more updates I allowed, the more the computer seemed to slow down.
Then my 3-year old HDD started to make weird clicking/wheezing sounds and I decided to upgrade to a new bigger faster one before it crashed completely---reinstalled XP with SP3, then turned off the updater function.
Six months later, running perfectly without a single hiccup. I suppose if Microsoft comes out with a "Critical Security Update" I might install that.
Wonder if the fact that I use Firefox with NoScript, Avira Antivirus and Spybot has something to do with it? Firewall is hardware based and Windows-based. I never touch Internet Explorer nor use Outlook for email. I think the last time I got a virus was almost 10 years ago, and it was a snap to remove.
It just seems to me that there's a whole lot of scare-mongering about hackers and viruses... | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/9/2009 4:26:17 PM | You know theres a difference between Microsoft update and Windows Update dont you?
I use Microsoft update, that way you get ALL the updates for the Microsoft software on my PC, otherwise I would forget about updating M$ Office to the latest Service Pack, and critical updates.
Microsoft update updates ALL the microsoft products you may have installed.
Windows Update updates only Windows, and the windows componants you have installed | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/9/2009 4:35:29 PM | | I don't turn mine off, but I do switch it Check for updates, but let me choose whether to download and install them. I don't like Windows update automaticly downloading and installing any updates without me knowing what the updates are for and which ones I want downloaded and installed and which ones I don't want to downloaded and installed. | |
|
- don
|
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 4 | |
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/9/2009 5:22:06 PM | I disable my auto updates & manually do them...for my XP/Vista virtual clients (when I use them) I update them via WSUS with my Win2k3 machine.
I've noticed when I have it set to "auto" there is always unnecessary traffic b/c windows loves to constantly check in.
For the average user I strongly recommend auto-updates
edit:
for app updates, i use Secunia | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/9/2009 6:08:01 PM | | XP3 is a very stable OS right now, so running the last 6 months without a hiccup seems reasonable. I also doubt that allowing auto-updates had much to do with excessive wear on your HDD. I do keep auto-updates turned off regardless though, mostly to minimize connection traffic. I check for them manually and only allow the ones I want. But I've been working with PC's since the days of 8086's and DOS, and am very comfortable config'ing my own machines. For the average user I would agree with Don, keep the updates on, better safe than sorry if you're not sure what goes on under the hood. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/9/2009 9:52:12 PM |
You know theres a difference between Microsoft update and Windows Update dont you?
Yep, just slipped my mind when I started the thread. Unfortunately PoF won't allow me to go back and change the thread title. Oh well. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/10/2009 10:26:35 PM |
I don't turn mine off, but I do switch it Check for updates, but let me choose whether to download and install them. I don't like Windows update automaticly downloading and installing any updates without me knowing what the updates are for and which ones I want downloaded and installed and which ones I don't want to downloaded and installed.
Same here. I've yet to allow IE 7/8 and that monthly malicious software removal tool to be downloaded. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/10/2009 11:12:07 PM | Say what? what is this windows you're taking about? 
Microsoft is known to slip an update you might not want! Auto update maybe good for the people that wouldn't update their windows at all. rosoft update, that way you get ALL the updates for the Microsoft software on my PC, otherwise I would forget about updating M$ Office to the latest Service P | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/11/2009 7:40:26 AM |
I've yet to allow IE 7/8 and that monthly malicious software removal tool to be downloaded.
FWIW, IE8 is actually somewhat decent, though it's still slower and far less customizable than Firefox. I use it only for those occasional sites that refuse to work with Firefox. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/11/2009 10:05:44 AM |
It just seems to me that there's a whole lot of scare-mongering about hackers and viruses...
WRONG!
I've seen some of the nasty stuff out there on the internet. I've seen things that, despite having some age, are able to penetrate despite malware and anti-virus protection.
Most of it depends where you go and who you deal with. Having spent a good portion of my life in the "darker" portions of the internet...I tend to run into all sorts of things. The funny thing was...the virus that wiped out every PC in my house despite good AV protection....came off a chinese mp3 player I bought. It was a typical Shuckbot trojan that was able to detect and crash both Avast and Spybot before actually executing using autorun exploits. It spread to every removable drive and network share that euventually infected every computer.
They weren't cleanable either. I had to format the systems.
You NEED the security software even if you don't think you do. You run in to the right website with the right malicious code implanted in it and almost any browser you use is affected. For every "no-script" or thing the software vendors do to prevent it...the hackers have some other way of infecting you.
Just becuase you've never encountered it doesn't mean it's not out there...trust me, it is...it's nasty.
As far as Windows update, I install 'em once a week. Never slowed the system down. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/11/2009 10:26:17 AM |
It just seems to me that there's a whole lot of scare-mongering about hackers and viruses...
Botnets proves that people are getting hacked without their knowledge. I hear the number is around 20 million. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/11/2009 10:30:55 AM | I update mine manually, but all you really need to do is make sure you keep your patches up to date, and have a good antivirus/antispyware program running. Be aware of false antispyware programs. Stick to something that works like Symantec or Mcaffee.
It sounds to me like you are doing everything you can, and there is only so much you can do. I suppose the other thing you can do if you can afford it is put a double firewall. i.e. have a router after your modem, then hook up a single machine to that and use that one machine only for all your internet stuff. then hookup a 2nd router to set up a local area netwrok, and put your machine that contains all your personal stuff behind that. Doing so you will be aprox 99.99% safe. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/11/2009 11:46:21 AM |
FWIW, IE8 is actually somewhat decent, though it's still slower and far less customizable than Firefox. I use it only for those occasional sites that refuse to work with Firefox.
IE8 is slower by design, the design is a bad one on the part of Firefox.
It is faster but thats not a good thing because of the way it achieves its speed.
I dont use it myself, not on FreeBSD, nor on Windows, I refuse to support that program now, the problems that have been highlited since the days it was called Pheonix and FireBird have persisted right the way though, so I conclude they are faults by design, in order to get a heads up on IE.
And I know the problem wasnt local spercific because you would get the same issues on comepletely different PCs.
Botnets proves that people are getting hacked without their knowledge. I hear the number is around 20 million.
So about 1/3rd of the population of the UK have been voilated by hackers, but the rest of the world is safe.
Hardly an epedemic is it.
Or maybe...
I update mine manually, but all you really need to do is make sure you keep your patches up to date, and have a good antivirus/antispyware program running. Be aware of false antispyware programs. Stick to something that works like Symantec or Mcaffee.
It sounds to me like you are doing everything you can, and there is only so much you can do. I suppose the other thing you can do if you can afford it is put a double firewall. i.e. have a router after your modem, then hook up a single machine to that and use that one machine only for all your internet stuff. then hookup a 2nd router to set up a local area netwrok, and put your machine that contains all your personal stuff behind that. Doing so you will be aprox 99.99% safe.
huh?|?|?|?
Where in gods name did you study networking?
1st dont have a second router, theres no point.
Modem > Firewall > Router > PC [iNet]> Router > PC [data]
No point, the firewall could output a signal to the PC direct, and no point in the 2nd router attached to the iNet PC theres not enough traffic to route.
A router will not protect you from any form of attack, it is for routing packets to the host PC directly without the packets being sent to every host on the network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router
It remembers where each host is [Routing tables] and sends their data to them directly.
Why would you need to network the two PCs if your that paranoid about hackers getting into your data, best and only real defence from hackers is to make it stand alone.
If your going to do it like you said, try this
Modem > Firewall > PC >Switch or Hub > PC
or
Modem/Router/Firewall > PC > Switch or Hub > PC
Or
Modem > Firewall > PC > ICS > PC
or
Modem/Router/Firewall > PC > ICS > PC
SubtleCaffine Im with you on that one mate.
Most think if they have all they think they need like firewalls, routers, up to date anti virus and malware they are safe...
Not even close!
determination of one can make a mokery of even the best defenes you can think of | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/11/2009 12:01:53 PM | I don't see why windows update would cause wear and tear on the hard drive, it downloads the updates, installs them, then leaves it be. The average user gets more data copied into their PC by a web browser (just surfing the net as usual) than with the windows updater. My net traffic yesterday is logged as 532mb after removing an online game's traffic from it; 70% of that 532mb is just images that were used on websites, however small they are with how many of them there are they add up quickly; I imagine people that visit myspace get a lot higher traffic than that from the music folks post on their pages there. The anti-virus and spybot will put more use on your hard drive than windows update will, of that I am certain.
My preference however is to only let it auto-install security updates, there is nothing I hate more than being in the middle of working on some project just to have "Your computer will restart in 5 minutes to finish installing updates." pop up and distract me. I usually check windows update (via the tool built into control panel) manually once a month and grab any of the ones I really need. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/21/2009 2:57:04 AM | I've disabled updates on my computer and don't regret it at all. Sure maybe I have some spyware or whatever on here, but it's almost impossible to avoid if you browse the net as much as I do, and those "critical updates" never prevented them in the first place back when I let them run. My computer runs smoother and faster... and I enjoy not getting daily popups telling me there's a new version of Adobe Acrobat, or Windows Media Player. WTF? No thanks! Yesterday's version of WMP plays my music just fine.
When I first registered for internet at my school, it said we're required to have antivirus software. Though I've been without it for a year and nobody's caught up with met yet. I'm avoiding it because it was a nuisance in my last school. It'd do these 2 hour long scans of the whole computer every night at 12:30 which slowed it down like crazy. During a scan it'd take like 15 seconds just to open the internet.
Unfortunately, I work at a government lab which takes all the updates/patches/antivirus nonsense quite seriously and I'm disabled from disabling them *cries*. Sometimes I come in to my office to find all the programs/documents/websites I had open are gone because the computer automatically updated and rebooted overnight. So frustrating. And sure you can just tell me "save your work," but when you're doing things like writing programs, you make small changes and try it again, repeat... and you don't know right away whether you want to keep the changes or not. And if you save it as a separate file, you'll quickly end up with 20 different versions of your program and be lost. It's not that easy.
So long story short, let's write a virus that attacks antivirus software, a patch that protects against patches etc  | |
|
| |
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/21/2009 4:23:10 PM | On but rarely update. Don't use a Windows machine for security related webbing. I figure there's a much smaller market for OS 10 security attacks. I've often wondered if 'updates' may not be one opportunity to ensure obsolescence. Considering the still present bugs that have been in MS software since Windoze first came out, they sure don't seem to be for anything but the 'improvements' Microshaft wish to inflict upon us.
Noting how things slow down over time (You realize Vista is over 1000 times slower than the first version of Windows - was that 3.2?), I've often wondered if there isn't a conscious effort to slow things down an keep us buying faster machines. It would even be possible to write code which increments loops with time to slow things down. I suppose it would be possible to slow down the clock significantly, hook up another computer to monitor address and data bus and document where the OS spends most of its time. If only I had the time....... | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/21/2009 7:30:42 PM |
realize Vista is over 1000 times slower than the first version of Windows - was that 3.2?
No the first vesion of Windows was Windows 1, it was the first vesion of Windows with a GUI. before that it was MS-DOS.
Hardware and software is contemparary to eachother, if you run Vista on a Pentium Pro it wont work well, if at all.
A Pentium Pro is the same generation as the P3, P4, but they have updated instruction sets.
Ive run Vista on a dual quad core xeon based system and while it isnt the best OS, it isnt as bad as people make out.
They gave people what they asked for, the problem is people dont know how to code OSs.
Vista is a good example of "to many cooks spoil the broth" rather than "many fingers make light work" which is what M$ was hoping for. | |
|
| POLL: How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/22/2009 2:00:58 PM | Well, duh? It’s FREE- isn’t it!
That’s like not taking your car in for an oil change. (And you pay for it.)
MS is working on your behalf and stills give you a choice to join in on their developments. WOW…amazing concept to grasp! | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/25/2009 6:09:39 PM | OP -- Yea I always run without ANY MS/Windows Update. I also advise clients to disable theirs as well. Too many times (and I really mean TOO many times) they have issues and the latest entry in their System Restore is one saying "Software Distribution Service X.X" which is an automatic update. Remove that by going back before it was installed and viola their issue is gone 99% of the time (provided that System Restore doesn't give the "Was Not Able To Restore Your Computer" crapola).
I remember back in the day when I worked for ComCast we had issues with IP addresses not releasing/renewing and when I went to check there was Software Distribution Service X.X in there as the latest entry as well...'cept back in those days it was referred to as Windows Update v3/v4 (which is the same thing).
I went up MS's ass about it and told them it's a HUGE issue that generating calls we shouldn't be taking because they seem to feel that this computer or that computer "needs" this update and then it blows it all to Hell. Seeing as how I don't believe in coincidence, 99% of the calls I took and the systems I serviced ALL had that damn entry as the most recent and once undone all was normal.
Soon as I tell that to my clients they stop the friggin update bullshit.
The ones that insist on keeping it are advised how to un-f*ck their system once it allows MS to re-f*ck it 'cause I won't be coming back to redo the same thing because they insisted on having them on.
It's a plague and MS should take their shit more serious than they do.
JMO. | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 8/25/2009 8:01:47 PM | I have never allowed automatic updates. I check for them manually once a week with my regular maintenance routine, and on Update Tuesday. I select what I want and install them.
In fact, the only auto-update I have activated is my AVG anti-virus because it's completely non-disruptive. Every other auto-update is disabled on both my WinXP SP3 and Win7 RC machines. | |
|
| How many of you have DISABLED Microsoft Updates?
Posted: 9/3/2009 8:17:52 AM | Disabled all, but fortunately that's not a decision I need to trouble myself with too much these days - switched to Apple Mac and staying. Only need to update MS Office now & again - more to keep up with client versions. If it were for my needs alone, stuff I used a decade ago would still do the job. Have a 'Windoze' notebook but seldom connect it to web, so it doesn't matter. Yeah for Macs!   | |
|
Home
login 
