Re: Bad sectors... how bad?


"Pdigmking" <paugle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9726873C4D155paugle@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> David Maynard <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:11pfa10evglfn14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>
> >
> > Hate to tell you this but what you call 'defective' is simply life in
> > the computer O.S. world, or any software for that matter. Go ahead and
> > install Linux, if you like, and then check for the gazillion security
> > updates/patches/fixes for it as well.
> >
>
> Dude, linux is free, if MS want's to start giving away their OS's I'll
> gladly stop complaining. Besides, you can't seriously be suggesting that
> Linux and Mac Os's are experiencing anywhere near the security problems

> that MS does. Macs have always been way more stable.

That has to do with ALLOT more than just the OS
>
> >
> > You're complaining about 'reality' and there is no law that can make
> > people omniscient nor infallible. Software of any significant
> > complexity contains bugs and software written to fix bugs will contain
> > bugs. And it will always be that way was long as there are human
> > beings involved.
> >
>
> I'm not asking for perfection, I'm just asking for a price that reflects
> actual quality of the product.

I paid 89$ dollars for ME years ago, I paid 79$ for XP home, I paid 70
dollars for a game that i had to patch and then finished it in 8 days. I
still use 'ME' today, I couldn't tell you where that game disk is at.

And don't talk to me about complexity,
> they choose to build that complexity into the product, it's not required
> or necessary. You used to be able to go into your ten line auto exec
> batch command and fix boot problems in two minutes. MS just keeps adding
> bells and whistles, and every bell and whistle they add is another
> potential problem. They choose to integrate Explorer to a rediculous
> extent, and Outlook etc. Obviously the Browser didn't need to be
> integrated into the OS because other browsers work just fine without such
> integration. On and on I could go.
>
>
> >
> > Simple to solve all by your own little lonesome: don't buy upgrade
> > CDs.
>
> Pay twice as much for the exact same disk.. yeah.
>
> >
> >> I think the only difference between the $200 XP disk
> >> and the $100 upgrade is that the upgrade looks for previous installs.
> >
> > Yep. They give you an break on a new O.S. if you've previously bought
> > one. Nice of them, don't you think?
>
> Nope, I do not think it's nice of them. Look, I'm using their operating
> system either way and they profit form that. It's got nothing to do with
> nice. They keep producing crappy OS's with security bugs, which in turn
> have to be replaced with the next generation crappy OS. This is their
> marketing strategy, not mine.

Um security 'bugs' are 'exploited' by the element of humanity that thinks
along the same lines as you.
Hate MS at any cost.....
If someone breaks into your house, who do you blame? Everyone but the a-
hole that did the breaking into? How about blaming the intellectuals who
perpetrate the exploits? Crappy OS, well if you are someone who was around
in the DOS days you ought to be ashamed, And if you weren't, you should get
a better perspective. IS ANYTHING PERFECT? is Linux PERFECT? I have been a
linux installer since 1998, that's all you ever get to do, is install it.
Hey BTW "Rush Limpballs" if you have all the answers, get on the
Linux, -going no where train-, and change its direction, cause its been
heading no where with its leaders perpetrating their helter skelter design
attitude.

>
> >
> > Basically you're gaming the system by perpetually buying 'upgrade' CDs
> > and then complaining they don't make it even easier for you to avoid
> > buying the O.S.
>
> I'm not gaming anything, I'm buying legitimate products that MS chooses
> to sell.
>
> >
> >> No MS OS should cost more than $100 from now on.
> >
> > Well, while we're going to dictate prices why not declare that no car
> > shall cost more than 1,000 dollars and TV sets shall be 20 bucks?
> >
>
> Dude, the only reason MS can charge these prices for a messed up OS is
> that they have a monopoly that they established illegally.

Unlike Food stores, Home Improvement centers, Auto parts
stores.............................

>
> >>
> >
> > ... you can order a SP2 CD for free, plus shipping and handling.
> >
> >> every six
> >> months.
>
> Dude it's the same disk they released a year ago, you still have to go
> online to fully update all the patches.
>
> > So when a vulnerability is found you want to remain vulnerable for 6
> > months, eh?
>
> No, you are vulnerable forever and always with MS products.

No crooks no vulnerabilities


>
> >
> > With the exception of your arbitrary '6 months' time table they
> > already do essentially that with the service pack releases.
>
> Again, the SP's are not released every six months, hence the SP "2"
> instead of SP4 or 5.
>

Who cares, it takes a few minutes to get patched from the crooks who write
the crap your complaining about, that infect MS machines. I find this
incredible, that people blame someone's product and their efforts to protect
THEM from CROOKS, rather than the perpetrators. You are barking up the wrong
directory tree. What are you really complaining about? The fact that XP
hinders piracy. If you came up with windows (or whatever) it sure would be
interesting to hear your position then.

> >
> >> No one with a dial up should have to sit around for six hours
> >> with a vulnerable OS waiting for all the patches to download and
> >> install on your brand new $100 operating system! The background
> >> option is fine for weekly maintaince, but after six months, your
> >> usually looking multiple and large patches and program updates.
> >
>
> Again, at this point, when you get SP2, you are already one year behind
> in patches and upgrades. You have to go online to the last years worth
> of patches, if you have a dial up connection your looking at hours and
> hours of downloads. Remember, you don't leave dial ups connected all the
> time unless you have a second line.
>
> >> That's what I say!
> >>
> >> Paul.
> >
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bad sectors... how bad?
    ... > complexity contains bugs and software written to fix bugs will contain ... >> and the $100 upgrade is that the upgrade looks for previous installs. ... online to fully update all the patches. ... > So when a vulnerability is found you want to remain vulnerable for 6 ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: vulnerability found in Adobe PDF reader
    ... The fact that they offer patches for current Windows OSs and the current version of Mac OS doesn't mean that it isn't a Linux issue, just that they haven't offered a patch for it. ... They don't mention Windows 98 either, but that doesn't mean it isn't vulnerable, maybe they just never produced an Adobe Reader with the flaw for it. ... Must be it's not needed because the vulnerability is tied to Internet Explorer, and there is no Linux version of IE - something for which all Linux users should be profoundly grateful. ...
    (comp.periphs.printers)
  • Re: several messages
    ... Subject: Linux 2.6.16.3 ... Now admins spend another hour this day just to upgrade. ... These two patches could have been queued until the end of the day. ... people and I had already waited longer than I felt comfortable with, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: several messages
    ... Subject: Linux 2.6.16.3 ... Now admins spend another hour this day just to upgrade. ... These two patches could have been queued until the end of the day. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: To Anyone who has Internet Explorer Installed or any other browser (Everybody)
    ... > Try and imagine if MS required a full upgrade each time ANY flaw ... vulnerability you listed above includes patches for versions of IE ... But hey...might as well make this post into "Big bad Microsoft", ...
    (alt.computer.security)