[Brian Rector]

This is the last straw for me. I have gone through years of patches after patches for IE and Windows and I have had enough. IMHO, all these patches will make Windows and Internet Explorer more and more unstable and more crash prone everyday.

Personally, the way to get out of this "patch happy" attitude of Microsoft is to use a different browser, like Netscape, Opera, or Mozilla.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-914805.html?legacy=cnet&tag=lthd

 

[gcutler]

Originally posted by Brian Rector
This is the last straw for me. I have gone through years of patches after patches for IE and Windows and I have had enough. IMHO, all these patches will make Windows and Internet Explorer more and more unstable and more crash prone everyday.

Personally, the way to get out of this "patch happy" attitude of Microsoft is to use a different browser, like Netscape, Opera, or Mozilla.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-914805.html?legacy=cnet&tag=lthd

There are two types of Patches. One is the security Patch, the other is the bug fix.

Every Product requires bug fixes. IBM/Lotus, Novell, you name it has bugs not all these bugs can be fixed at once, so they have to put out preiodic bug fixes. And yes sometimes new bugs occur. This is not a Microsoft only problem, take a look at any game, or other piece of software (business or personal) and you will see continual fixes.

And my question is why is this a problem? The Software is in many ways a living entity and I'd rather have to apply a monthly fix that be stuck with software that never is updated. Part of my weekly/monthly mantenance procedure is to apply the patches for the period.

The security fix is a different area, as people find holes in security Microsoft patches up the holes. Many people just say that it is MS only that has the problem. But Netscape had security holes as well. I see the issue is MASS, if you are going to probe for holes in a browser which browser would be most effective with your time, IE wins just by the # of users.

Why get on MS's case when they are legitimately trying to fix the problems they are aware of instead of other companies where they ignore the facts. They make is easy to get the SW (granted a Dialup modem isn't as efficient as DSL/Cable Modem)

What makes you think the other web browsers will be so bug free that they will never need a bug patch or security patch. Just because none exist does not that there is no need. Many small companies don't put out bug patches becasue they don't have the manpower.

 

[Brian Rector]

Here's a interesting article from Robert Vamosi of ZDNet. He is tired also of all the bug fixes and security updates that is supposed to make Windows a more secure environment.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-874398.html

 

[gcutler]

He posted in the article "What I don't understand is why we all put up with Microsoft's piecemeal security updates. Why doesn't Microsoft retire 5.01, 5.5, and 6.0, and release Internet Explorer 6.1? How many service packs and patches are you willing to download to secure your browser? It seems like too much hassle to me. "

While a valid point for the home user, it proves he has no idea what is going in the corporate world. IBM, MS, and just about every corporate vendor do this and have been doing this for the past 20 years. It is the NORM in Corporate IT. And much of the standard of Corporate IT migrates its way to the home. I remember sitting there applying the security patches to OS/2. And before me my co-workers applied the patches to the Mainframes. As a matter of fact, you could not get support without applying those patches first.

I have never used Opera, so won't comment on it. But I have used Netscape 6.x in various versions and find it to be a piece of junk. I'd rather use IE 6.x with all the holes than Netscapes latest attempt.

As to his question about why not retire 5.x and 6.0 and change to 6.1, people are afraid of upgrades. Users are more willing to apply a patch or 100 than to install a new version (even though it requires the same effort)

 

[Bogy]

Originally posted by Brian Rector
This is the last straw for me. I have gone through years of patches after patches for IE and Windows and I have had enough. IMHO, all these patches will make Windows and Internet Explorer more and more unstable and more crash prone everyday.

Personally, the way to get out of this "patch happy" attitude of Microsoft is to use a different browser, like Netscape, Opera, or Mozilla.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-914805.html?legacy=cnet&tag=lthd

Brian, do you also refuse to update your virus scanner?

 

[lee635]

Originally posted by gcutler
Every Product requires bug fixes. IBM/Lotus, Novell, you name it has bugs not all these bugs can be fixed at once, so they have to put out preiodic bug fixes

Novell is way more stable and secure than anything MS puts out. I was at an ISACA seminar a couple of years ago and the MS session was packed with people and there was a thick handout with all kinds of exploits.

Over at the Novell session, it was a handful of people in a circle and the leader was saying, "Well, keep your passwords secure, and lock up the server so no one steals the memory sticks." Have you ever heard of a Novell virus? My sister in law runs a LAN used by inmate workers and she ended up implementing Netware and Border Manager and a Cisco PIX to lock up the network. The previous microsoft network was so riddled with holes that when she was hired they said lock this thing down or we're killing the program.

 

[Brian Rector]

AntiVirus software often leave a false sense of security. Granted, its updated on a regular basis, but the catch is that often the software companies, such as McAfee and Symantec often play catchup on updating. By the time the software is updated, more viruses are being made and there are times where its too late and a PC can be infected with a new virus that the companies havent even updated the software yet to catch.

 

[Steve Mehs]

I have never updated IE6. The one gripe I have against Mcafee is that updates only come out Thursdays, I think as soon as they have the info on a new virus the should have a new DAT avaliable not keep it on hold for upto a week. Does Norton do this?

 

[gcutler]

Originally posted by Brian Rector
AntiVirus software often leave a false sense of security. Granted, its updated on a regular basis, but the catch is that often the software companies, such as McAfee and Symantec often play catchup on updating. By the time the software is updated, more viruses are being made and there are times where its too late and a PC can be infected with a new virus that the companies havent even updated the software yet to catch.

There is something to be said about finding the virus after 3-4 days than 6 months down the line. Since not every virus will destroy all your data, I'd rather have the virus found and eliminated ASAP instead of ignoring it.

Consider it like taking out the garbage. If you stop taking out the garbage it just piles up, stinks, and eventually it is out of control. If you make an attempt to take out the garbage on a scheduled basis, less chance of being overwhelmed when it becomes necessary.

 

[gcutler]

Originally posted by Steve Mehs
I have never updated IE6. The one gripe I have against Mcafee is that updates only come out Thursdays, I think as soon as they have the info on a new virus the should have a new DAT avaliable not keep it on hold for upto a week. Does Norton do this?

When I used be warned of Norton updates (I let them happen automatically and don't keep track) I remember getting two updates in 1 day as well as getting several updates over a 1 week period. So I believe that Norton updates whenever it it updates the definitions.

 

[Bogy]

I use AVG by Grisoft. I check for updates at least daily, and the computers check automatically each nite. sometimes I will go for a week without an update, but often the updates come every day.