Re: spyware on macs ?

macsucks3737@xxxxxxxxx wrote: 
TheLetterK wrote:

macsucks3737@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

TheLetterK wrote:


macsucks3737@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


It certainly is worth bothering with if you want to speed up your
computer

There would be no perceptable improvement in speed were you to do so. 


Of course there is, if you actually tried it you would know that. Why
wouldn't it be faster with fewer services vying for memory and cpu
time?


Because you have to replace those services to maintain functionality?
The only difference is that the replacements do not have the benefit of
system integration, nor do the interoperate as fluidly.


No you don't.

Yes, yes you do.


Then you did it wrong. 
Or I actually removed IE and you didn't.


However, you *would* lose functionality, and probably eat more memory
through replacements.


What replacements? 

Litestep to replace Explorer (shell), Firefox to replace the browser
component, 2x Explorer to replace Explorer (file manager)--these three
alone put you over what Explorer pulls.


You do not need to replace Explorer. It still works fine. 

Then you didn'y remove IE. You might have removed the browser component,
I suppose, but the application itself is still there. It's why you can
do things like add active web content to your desktop.


Active Desktop does not work. Explorer.exe does. There is a difference. 
Not in XP.




and not have to deal with Internet Explorer, possibly the
worst application ever made.


Which also happens to be the only practical way to upgrade a Windows
installation on a home desktop.



Why do you need Internet Explorer to upgrade? You cannot perform an
upgrade install from CD like everyone else?


I'm sorry, 'update' was a better word, though upgrades do occasionally
filter through Windows Update. Still, I'd rather *not* sit out on 4+
years of updates.


You can still download the updates. 

Manually. Wandering around Microsoft's download site hoping to find all
the patch installers is not exactly a practical method to apply updates
in a timely fashion. It *certainly* takes more time than the few hundred
milliseconds you might have saved that month by removing IE.



Who said anything about using the Microsoft website?


Anyway, you can find a good example of the process at www.vorck.com.
His instructions are for Windows 2000 but things are hardly any
different on XP. (There are plenty of sites explaining XP too, but none
go into quite the detail as Vorck.)


His instructions are not removal instructions, they are disabling
instructions (well, except for the 'don't install IE when installing
Windows' thing).



How are instructions to "Remove Internet Explorer" not removal
instructions?


The same reason I was incorrect to use 'upgrade' in the comment above,
even though I did.



Well, Internet Explorer is not installed on my hard drive, so I would
consider that removed, despite whatever semantic game you are currently
playing.



You also lose a lot of other things, like WSH, Task Scheduler, 16-bit
app compatibility, *Windows Update*, WMP, Faxing, and some others.


All useless.

Excuse me? WSH, Task Scheduler, Windows Update, and WMP are all very useful.


Windows Scripting Host = Something I would never use.

But something losts of other people would use.


Too bad for them. 
Too bad for you, more like it.


Task Scheduler = Another component I would never use.

That's something *I* use, and lots of others do as well.


Too bad for you. 
Why? There's no actual reason to get rid of IE.


Windows Update = Totally unnecessary to update your system. 

It's the most convenient and fastest way to keep your Windows box up to
date.


Updates are not necessary, and 62nds is just as fast. 
But are they as reliable?


Windows Media Player = Works fine without Internet Explorer. 

No it doesn't--the IE component is embedded into the player. That's how
it displays album content, the music stores, radio, etc.


Media Player will work without those features. 
IIRC it just generates an error and fails.



There are other ways to update without Windows Update
anyway.


Yeah, manually. Why again would I do this? For dubious 'speed
improvements' and reduced functionality?



The speed improvements are not dubious, although since you aren't even
going to try it yourself you will never know. I'm still waiting to hear
what functions are "reduced" that anyone actually uses.


Windows Update!!! Task Scheduler!!! WMP!!! WSH!!! All of these are
applications that *real people* use. Your little theoretical world where
everyone wants to manually dig up patches in exchange for an extra 10MiB
of physical memory and a 15 second boot time instead of 30 is not even
*close* to the real world.



Also a more stable and more secure system. But, if that's not for you,
then it's not for you.
So, what kind of benchmarks have you run to demonstrate your claim? Any way to verify your asinine suggestions?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Since January 18th, no high-priority updates...
    ... Since I do not intend to install NIS 2006 again, I thought it does not matter ... I checked about what you say (time of the Automatic Updates) and changed it ... I uninstalled NIS 2006... ... 2 February 2006 Windows Update Agent Unable to Connect: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: no signal error
    ... from biosupdate to the other updates. ... And also when i finally get into windows and just doing regular tasks as ... Select "review and install updates" and "install ... If you removed any softwares in step 7, restart computer. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Latest Update Wreaked Havok - Cannot Restore
    ... track of what you install in order to be able to uninstall it. ... been diligent with your critical updates, ... Windows Update ... You should at least turn on the built in firewall. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • Re: Windows updates fail after install of SP2
    ... I'm sure I didn't delete any log files since my last update though; especially anything to do with Windows Update. ... Are the updates now showing in Add/Remove Programs in the Control ... I thought I would turn automatic updates on so that it would automatically download and install updates but that didn't seem to do anything either. ... The issue of updates not being offered after the application of SP2 is a new twist on an old theme ... ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Windows 98 box is "owned"
    ... Microsoft officially is no longer issuing *new* updates for Windos 98, ... on Windows update, although you will find all the "critical" (as defined ... Perhaps it is time to say screw it and install ... You noted that your mother has ZA. ...
    (Security-Basics)