Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Apr 2009 13:48 UTC
Bugs & Viruses We're well and deep into April 1 now, and if you were to believe some of the reports and hype on the internet, we should've all been paying in bottle caps right about now. As any sane person already saw coming, the Windows worm Conficker didn't do anything. It just kind of sat there, patiently mocking all those who did not update their machines properly.
Thread beginning with comment 356326
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: April Fools
by flanque on Wed 1st Apr 2009 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: April Fools"
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

sbergman27, to be completely honest I have NEVER seen any update from Microsoft that trashes someone's system, either personally or professionally.

I'm in the support field and served years at the desktop level and am currently on the server level and I quite simply haven't seen it happen at all.

Maybe it has happened at some point in time but it's by no way the norm in my experience.

I do recall occassions where patches don't do what they're intended to do, but nothing to the extent where users systems are trashed.

If it were really a common problem we'd see a lot more media attention and it'd be far more commonly known within the community of people who actually participate in applying these patches on mass (thousands of machines in my case).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: April Fools
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Apr 2009 21:04 in reply to "RE[6]: April Fools"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

sbergman27, to be completely honest I have NEVER seen any update from Microsoft that trashes someone's system, either personally or professionally.

Well, personally and professionally, the number one reason I have heard from people for turning off updates is that a previous one "trashed their system". Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. But you really can't blame people who feel helpless anyway from taking an "If it works, don't fix it" attitude.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: April Fools
by flanque on Wed 1st Apr 2009 21:16 in reply to "RE[7]: April Fools"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Maybe, but I would argue that a more compelling reason to disable automatic updates in a corporate environment is to give the opportunity to test it before it is released to the masses. It'd be completely stupid to assume they'll always work thus testing beforehand is an absolute requirement.

That doesn't distract from the fact that the chances of an automatic update "trashing" a system is very very low.

As for at home, though I haven't checked every single patch, I am pretty confident that a restore point is created before the patche(s) are applied. I wouldn't be suprised if the overwealming majority of home users don't even know what this means and just assume their systems are toast.

Though not without exception, the updates from Microsoft are quite thoroughly tested. Having said that they cannot cover all possible situations some user's get their systems into, but it's pretty darn good.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: April Fools
by darknexus on Wed 1st Apr 2009 21:39 in reply to "RE[6]: April Fools"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Oh, I have. Anyone remember what happened, initially, when you tried to install IE7 on XP via Windows Update, and you got unlucky enough to have it error out half-way through the installation? That caused one hell of a mess on any system affected. Been there, done that. It was fixed fairly quickly, but not quickly enough to prevent a lot of people's systems from getting screwed up.
Plus, Microsoft's method of releasing updates and additional patches leaves a lot to be desired. What, may I ask, is the point of having .NET Framework and then on top of it have to download hotfixes or service packs (.NET is merely an example here, there are others)? Novel idea, why not, when a service pack is released, repackage the whole thing with the service pack slipstreamed into it? Leave the hotfix up for those who've already installed the base package, but for those who didn't, we wouldn't have to run cycle after cycle of windows update checks to make sure we've got all the patches, meanwhile having to deal with their temporary files that are left over and weren't deleted when they should have been?

Reply Parent Score: 2