Wat update - yes/no?

CarlTR6 said:

But you trust them enough to run their OS, AV, and apps... ???

Darryl, please note that I stated I do not trust MS, Adobe GM, etc and I said that I do not necessarily distrust them either.

I trust MS to develop and engineer an O/S and software that are reliable, work properly and do the job that I need done. IMHO MS fulfills this very well. I do not necessarily trust MS corporate agenda and policies. I trust Ford to build me a truck that is reliable, dependable, and functions well. That does not mean I endorse or trust Ford's corporate agenda and/or policies. I trust Triumph to build me a motorcycle that gets me from point A to point B and is reliable. That does not mean that I trust John Bloor. This doesn't mean that I distrust him either. I would not like Ford or Triumph telling me where to drive/ride, when to drive/ride, having me report to them how I am using their products, or tracking where I have driven or ridden.

This is just the quirky old guy that I am.

Yeah I caught myself on that after I posted the response to you.

However, I do trust MS to deliver updates. As the hackers find bugs/loopholes/back doors into Windows OS, I trust MS to deliver appropriate patches and bug fixes via auto updates. Why not? I trust them enough to use their OS over many alternative OS's. I dont agree with all their business practices either, but I dont fear the updates from them or my AV provider.

MS is the worldwide leader in SW with approx 88% of the world running a MS OS, therefore all the hackers want to attack and find these backdoors etc. So MS owes it to us, their loyal customers, to provide these updates in a timely and reliable method... and historically they have. If people are not running a legit copy MS has every right IMHO to shut the illegal copies down, and potentially prosecute the theives.

I am a teacher and consultant and I support and have built hundreds of PC's over the last decade and a half and I always use MS OS's. But I am MS certified and I must uphold the company line as its where my bread is buttered!

PS - I dont know about that Triumph, but good to hear you are a Ford man!

9/11
Madrid
Bali
wherever else...

everything is way more connected now.

if i'm going to fly somewhere, i put up with the hassle of extra screening. even as the innocent flyer, i may be pulled aside, asked some questions, and (maybe) have to submit to my luggage being searched. i'm still the innocent flyer, i just had to put up with an annoyance.

if i'm going to use my pc--and i'm not doing anything illegal--i have no fear of my os phoning home. besides, if the software maker (whoever they may be) states in their disclaimer that no personal info is sent, and it is found out later that personal info was in deed sent, 1) software maker's credibility is seriously jeopardized and 2) potential lawsuit -- further damaging software maker's credibility and potential to stay in business

Darryl Licht said:

Yeah I caught myself on that after I posted the response to you.

However, I do trust MS to deliver updates. As the hackers find bugs/loopholes/back doors into Windows OS, I trust MS to deliver appropriate patches and bug fixes via auto updates. Why not? I trust them enough to use their OS over many alternative OS's. I dont agree with all their business practices either, but I dont fear the updates from them or my AV provider.

MS is the worldwide leader in SW with approx 88% of the world running a MS OS, therefore all the hackers want to attack and find these backdoors etc. So MS owes it to us, their loyal customers, to provide these updates in a timely and reliable method... and historically they have. If people are not running a legit copy MS has every right IMHO to shut the illegal copies down, and potentially prosecute the theives.

I am a teacher and consultant and I support and have built hundreds of PC's over the last decade and a half and I always use MS OS's. But I am MS certified and I must uphold the company line as its where my bread is buttered!

PS - I dont know about that Triumph, but good to hear you are a Ford man!

LOL I have been riding Triumphs - along with other brands - since I bought my first Triumph in 1966. I starting riding in 1958. I am not a cruiser guy.

Back to topic. I trust MS to deliver updates; I just don't trust that these patches are always right - from experience. I also do not need patches for features that I never use and don't intend to use. That is why I do not do automatic updates. I review each update before I download and install it and I usually wait a few weeks to see if the update has caused any problems, This is a hold over from XP days. If there are no reported problems with an update and it fits my system as I use it, I will install it.

another bit of irony:

people are weary of the wat update phoning home but they will use:
-google search
-google chrome
-google dns
-google etc....

the largest and most visible company who collects data... sometimes personal...

you cry over microsoft's update to combat piracy because you want control over your pc, but you give your info freely to google...

<scratches head>

I rarely use Google for just that reason. I have limte what my browser sends them and I have blocked Google analytics and other Google side programs that gather data.

besides, if the software maker (whoever they may be) states in their disclaimer that no personal info is sent, and it is found out later that personal info was in deed sent, 1) software maker's credibility is seriously jeopardized and 2) potential lawsuit -- further damaging software maker's credibility and potential to stay in business

And that is exactly what MS was guilty of which led to my skepticism. But note, I did install WAT.

CarlTR6 said:

I rarely use Google for just that reason. I have limte what my browser sends them and I have blocked Google analytics and other Google side programs that gather data.

besides, if the software maker (whoever they may be) states in their disclaimer that no personal info is sent, and it is found out later that personal info was in deed sent, 1) software maker's credibility is seriously jeopardized and 2) potential lawsuit -- further damaging software maker's credibility and potential to stay in business

And that is exactly what MS was guilty of which led to my skepticism. But note, I did install WAT.

i agree with you... making a general statement to those whom it applies

mpcrsc562 said:

CarlTR6 said:

I rarely use Google for just that reason. I have limte what my browser sends them and I have blocked Google analytics and other Google side programs that gather data.

besides, if the software maker (whoever they may be) states in their disclaimer that no personal info is sent, and it is found out later that personal info was in deed sent, 1) software maker's credibility is seriously jeopardized and 2) potential lawsuit -- further damaging software maker's credibility and potential to stay in business

And that is exactly what MS was guilty of which led to my skepticism. But note, I did install WAT.

i agree with you... making a general statement to those whom it applies