Linked by vodoomoth on Mon 27th Sep 2010 13:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 442866
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: This wasn't about Vista
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 28th Sep 2010 00:33
in reply to "RE[2]: This wasn't about Vista"
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-08-19
It's not like an OS is more secure without Service Packs...
It's not a matter of refusing to install bug fixes - it's delaying installing those fixes until it can be confirmed that those fixes don't interfere with any critical applications.
For example, if SP1 breaks the software that runs a bank's call center, that's a business-breaker... bad publicity, and hundreds of people unable to work for as long as it takes to roll back the upgrade or fix the problem.