MS Downloads of Dell Graphics Drivers?

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42a992f2.2039240@nntp.charter.net...
> What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do
the
> right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else
Microsoft
> touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they
confuse
> themselves... Ben Myers

The competence level and political bent is finally exposed. Most folks want
good PC advice absent any non-technical agenda.

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42a993de.2274652@nntp.charter.net...
> " HW mfgs stop providing new fixes/versions at some point and often that's
> before MS does." Huh? This gives me the impression that Microsoft has a
whole
> bunch of worker bees scrutinizing the drivers and fixing them up.

And that's excatly what MS has for certain stability, security etc.
purposes.

> And we are
> supposed to think that Microsoft is so gracious and caring that they would
do
> this? Sure! I'd like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge while we're at it, too.

Apparently you already did.

>
> First, to get hardware device drivers onto the Windows installation CD and
or to
> get the latest versions of drivers onto the Microsoft update site, the
chipset
> developers (e.g, Intel and VIA for motherboards; Intel, ATI and nVidia for
> graphics; Intel, 3com, Realtek for network cards; Conexant and PCTel for
modems;
> Creative and ADI for audio) first pay Microsoft for the privilege of
including
> the drivers on the install CD, then they pay to have each edition of
drivers
> tested in Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL), and they
probably
> pay by the megabyte for space on the update web site. WHQL DOES run some
> pretty extensive tests on the drivers before they are affixed with an
electronic
> WHQL certificate and made available as updates.

What a horrible nasty thing for MS to do to it's customer base.

> Why are updates even done by the hardware manufacturers? Three reasons.
The
> one most people should be concerned about is to fix defects. The next is
to fix
> glaring performance problems, such as those revealed recently by a 3rd
party
> company testing network drivers. The third, usually the case for ATI,
nVidia
> and Intel, is to incorporate new hardware into an omnibus driver, i.e. a
single
> driver set that supports a wide variety of chips. Examples are Intel's
> 800-series motherboard chipsets and nVidia's family of graphics chips.
>
> Many hardware manufacturers, especially those of low-volume devices such
as
> scanners and special purpose printers, often do not submit their drivers
to WHQL
> because it is too expensive to do so.
>
> Hardware manufacturers often augment their driver sets with additional
> utilities, which you will not find on the Microsoft update site.

OH so you mean size isn't important but what about the color of the banner
on their website?

> Examples might
> be better fine-tuning of graphics capabilities (ATI, nVidia, Matrox) and
> additional audio features (ADI and Creative).
>
> Now where is it that the supposed Microsoft hardware driver developers
enter
> into play in the above scenario??? ... Ben Myers

DUH...outside your narrow view and agenda.

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:079ja1lfdlhh29nb4gvgual9jt0f4rmk3g@4ax.com...
> axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Boy am I confused.
>
> Yeah, it's confusing. I've had some bad results with WinUp
> mis-identifying hardware and loading drivers that cause it to stop
> functioning, so I'm wareful of device drivers from M$. IMHO, the
> order of precedence is:
>
> Drivers from the device manufacturer (Intel, ATI, nVidia, etc). These
> will almost universally be the latest and greatest drivers, with all
> the current performance enhancements and bugfixes.
>
> Drivers from the computer manufacturer (Dell, etc). These are
> nessesary in some cases, where the device manufacturer's generic
> drivers aren't applicable to your custom hardware. For instance,
> laptop video drivers are in this category.
>
> Drivers from MicroSoft. These aren't always evil, BTW, I've had M$
> drivers automatically discover what type of video card I have and
> install a functional (if not optimal) set of drivers, so I can then
> know what vendor to check for the latest drivers. However, they
> should be either a last resort or a preliminary diagnostic tool.

How wonderful that there is actually someone here with a clue.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install this
driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell, nothing
has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older one,
XP would have prevented this.

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:deadnVDwotLmKzTfRVn-sg@scnresearch.com...
> "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> >Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least 🙂
> >exactly what he's talking about.
>
> >Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
> >the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
> >recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as
opposed
> >to WUD.
>
> Since it seems that everyone agrees with this, even those who many think
> don't have a clue and the Microsoft approved MVP's...

NOPE...only the clueless.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Oh? Are you a Micro$oft troll? I'm actually pretty competent at what I do,
otherwise I would be out of business. After nearly 20 years, I have learned not
to swallow the Microsoft propaganda, exactly like I do not accept 100% of what
any government says as the whole truth. Microsoft has a long history of
building software that is just about as complicated as it can be, going back as
far as the Windows 1.03 seminar I attended somewhere around 1986. As other
people posting to this thread have stated and as people posting to the various
Microsoft self-help NGs have stated, the Microsoft update does not always work,
and, worse yet, it does not give enough information to figure out why. This is
only stating the facts. It may be construed as political in a national climate
where the facts and non-facts are often interchanged with politics and science.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:31:41 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:42a992f2.2039240@nntp.charter.net...
>> What's happening is that you can't trust Microsoft's update to always do
>the
>> right thing. This has always been the case. As with anything else
>Microsoft
>> touches, they have made software updates so damned complicated that they
>confuse
>> themselves... Ben Myers
>
>The competence level and political bent is finally exposed. Most folks want
>good PC advice absent any non-technical agenda.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

An on point example of what I was referring to just posted in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Hi There

I was wondering if you could help me with the follow please?

I regularly run Windows Update on my PC and recently was told that I have a
sound card update.

I ran the update, C-Media AC97 Audio Device appeared so installed it and
then restarted the PC as per the instructions.

Now I have lost all sound on my PC, I have the above with a question mark
next to it and also when I try to select the details via the control panel,
it states I don't have a sound card installed.

If I restore the PC to an earlier date, the sound comes back.

Does anyone else have the same problem or suggest how I could fix this?

Thank you
Jason 😱)

Answers:

Experienced users will *never* install driver updates offered at Windows
Update.

You can go to Windows Update > select Custom Install > select "Hide this
update" for this driver.

You can configure Automatic Updates to (1) automatically download updates
but not install them or (2) just notify you of available updates, allowing
you to select ones to download and install.

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in Windows XP:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306525
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Jason. This is the reason why it is never a good idea to install
drivers from Windows Update. Set your Automatic Updates to always
notify you before installing updates. Then always choose the "Custom"
installation instead of the "Express". This will give you the ability
to see what the updates are and to deselect any that are for drivers.
Unless you are a gamer trying to squeeze every last frame-rate out of
your video card or are having problems with a device, the best policy
with updating drivers is: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". And if you
*do* need to update a driver, get it from either the device mftr.'s
website or if you have an OEM computer (Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) from the
OEM's website for your specific model machine.

Of course you want to install the security updates from Windows Update;
just not the drivers.

Malke
--
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

And that is where you are wrong. If the OEM has drivers available, *DO NOT*
use the updates on MSU. You seriously need to understand that you are
*WRONG*.
No amount of reposting your claim will make it correct.

Bobby

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
news:lUlqe.305399$cg1.276392@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Apparently the local NG thugs have a reading impairment. I said from the
> getgo that one should get their drivers from the mfg IF current. If WinUp
> has a more recent driver then use the one from WinUp.
>
> Is there anyone here with a clue? Go read what the experts in the
> microsoft.* NGs have to say in more detail. You'll get an education.
>
> "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:csfqe.25198$JX5.13319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> | > Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is for
> the
>> | > benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers
>> "extended"
>> | > drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied by
> the
>> | > manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm
>> drivers
>> | > developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are baseline
>> | > drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a minimum
>> | > footprint and still provide functionality.
>> |
>> | If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
>> |
>> | > They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
>> | enhancements
>> | > to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
>> | > A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
>> | >
>> | > 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD but
>> | don't
>> | > install it.
>> | > 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it to
>> your
>> | > HDD and don't install it.
>> | >
>> | > Now, simply compare the file sizes.
>> | >
>> | > Hmmm....
>> |
>> | WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim
>> that
>> the
>> | color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
>> |
>>
>> Fred,
>>
>> Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least 🙂
>> exactly what he's talking about.
>>
>> Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time in
>> the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft MVPs
>> recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as
>> opposed
>> to WUD.
>>
>> As baddog correctly stated the drivers offered @ WUD basic functionality
>> generally are missing extended functions that the manufacturers driver
>> provide.
>>
>> A frequent thread in the MS Newsgroups goes something like;
>>
>> "I just downloaded a driver from Windows Update and now my
>> (fill-in-the-blank) doesn't work anymore."
>>
>> The response is invariably, "don't get your drivers from Windows Update.
> Go
>> to the manufacturers support site for your computer/device and obtain as
>> driver there."
>>
>> --
>> Doug
>>
>> I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
>> I was just trying to help.
>> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
>> advice herein.
>> No warranty is expressed or implied.
>> Your mileage may vary.
>> See store for details.
>>
>> Remove shoes to E-mail.
>>
>>
>
>

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Wacko!

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Vcoqe.167$yw4.88@trnddc09...
> And that is where you are wrong. If the OEM has drivers available, *DO
NOT*
> use the updates on MSU. You seriously need to understand that you are
> *WRONG*.
> No amount of reposting your claim will make it correct.
>
> Bobby
>
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote in message
> news:lUlqe.305399$cg1.276392@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Apparently the local NG thugs have a reading impairment. I said from
the
> > getgo that one should get their drivers from the mfg IF current. If
WinUp
> > has a more recent driver then use the one from WinUp.
> >
> > Is there anyone here with a clue? Go read what the experts in the
> > microsoft.* NGs have to say in more detail. You'll get an education.
> >
> > "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhistshoes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:csfqe.25198$JX5.13319@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >> | > Microsoft offer basic driver sets for popular hardware. This is
for
> > the
> >> | > benefit of enterprise level hardware on which manufacturers
> >> "extended"
> >> | > drivers are not needed. While some of these drivers are supplied
by
> > the
> >> | > manufacturers themselves, quite often they are generic non-OEm
> >> drivers
> >> | > developed by Microsoft. In general terms, these drivers are
baseline
> >> | > drivers, intended for installation on mission hardware with a
minimum
> >> | > footprint and still provide functionality.
> >> |
> >> | If there's any content to that gibber it's hard to find.
> >> |
> >> | > They are not and never have been recommended as replacements or
> >> | enhancements
> >> | > to the manufacturers drivers designed for consumer machines.
> >> | > A simple experiment will demonstrate this;
> >> | >
> >> | > 1. Download the latest driver posted at Dell; save it on your HDD
but
> >> | don't
> >> | > install it.
> >> | > 2. Download the "same" driver form the Microsoft website. Save it
to
> >> your
> >> | > HDD and don't install it.
> >> | >
> >> | > Now, simply compare the file sizes.
> >> | >
> >> | > Hmmm....
> >> |
> >> | WOW, do you have any clue regarding these matters? You must claim
> >> that
> >> the
> >> | color of the website banner come into this somewhere?
> >> |
> >>
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >> Baddog is exactly correct and seems to know (on this topic at least 🙂
> >> exactly what he's talking about.
> >>
> >> Downloading device drivers from WUD is a bad idea. Spend a little time
in
> >> the Microsoft Public Newsgroups and you'll find that even Microsoft
MVPs
> >> recommend obtaining drivers from the manufacturer of the device as
> >> opposed
> >> to WUD.
> >>
> >> As baddog correctly stated the drivers offered @ WUD basic
functionality
> >> generally are missing extended functions that the manufacturers driver
> >> provide.
> >>
> >> A frequent thread in the MS Newsgroups goes something like;
> >>
> >> "I just downloaded a driver from Windows Update and now my
> >> (fill-in-the-blank) doesn't work anymore."
> >>
> >> The response is invariably, "don't get your drivers from Windows
Update.
> > Go
> >> to the manufacturers support site for your computer/device and obtain
as
> >> driver there."
> >>
> >> --
> >> Doug
> >>
> >> I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
> >> I was just trying to help.
> >> Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions
or
> >> advice herein.
> >> No warranty is expressed or implied.
> >> Your mileage may vary.
> >> See store for details.
> >>
> >> Remove shoes to E-mail.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
this
> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
nothing
> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
one,
> XP would have prevented this.

Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security initiative.
Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers and
home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic updates.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
>"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
>news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
>> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
>> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
>> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
>this
>> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
>nothing
>> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
>> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
>one,
>> XP would have prevented this.
>
>Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security initiative.
>Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
>sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
>
>

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42aa41de.543888@nntp.charter.net...
> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers
and
> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
updates.

Didn't I say that?

> ... Ben Myers
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>
> >
> >"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
> >news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
> >> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver
suddenly
> >> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming
it
> >> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
> >this
> >> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
> >nothing
> >> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
> >> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
> >one,
> >> XP would have prevented this.
> >
> >Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security
initiative.
> >Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
> >sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
> >
> >
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

No. Large IT organizations invest in automated tools to distribute updates
appropriately. They're smart enough and insecure enough to select which of the
M$ updates are required and distribute them automagically... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:

>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:42aa41de.543888@nntp.charter.net...
>> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers
>and
>> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
>updates.
>
>Didn't I say that?
>
>> ... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
>> >news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
>> >> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver
>suddenly
>> >> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming
>it
>> >> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
>> >this
>> >> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
>> >nothing
>> >> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
>> >> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
>> >one,
>> >> XP would have prevented this.
>> >
>> >Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security
>initiative.
>> >Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
>> >sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

my company does not even ditribute virus updates without first testing
them, just in case they cause a problem. We are just getting around to
distributing SP2 to our desktops

Wayne

Ben Myers wrote:

> No. Large IT organizations invest in automated tools to distribute
> updates appropriately. They're smart enough and insecure enough to
> select which of the M$ updates are required and distribute them
> automagically... Ben Myers
>
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
> > news:42aa41de.543888@nntp.charter.net...
> >> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of
> computers
> > and
> >> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
> > updates.
> >
> > Didn't I say that?
> >
> >> ... Ben Myers
> > >
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> > >
> >> >
> >> >"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
> >> >> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver
> > suddenly
> >> >> went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm
> assuming
> > it
> >> >> was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates
> install >> >this
> >> >> driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can
> tell, >> >nothing
> >> >> has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest
> Intel driver >> >> installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried
> to install an older >> >one,
> >> >> XP would have prevented this.
> >> >
> >> >Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security
> > initiative.
> >> >Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few
> insecure >> >sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual
> WinUp for folks. >> >
> >> >
> > >
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of computers and
> home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic updates.

So do some computer savvy retired programmers with just a desktop & a
notebook. One of the *last* things I would ever do is to enable MS to
update my computer without any intervention from me. Seems a little like
giving Tony Soprano access to my checking account.

As always, YMMV

> ... Ben Myers
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>
>
>>"History Fan" <Placesunknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
>>news:23309$42aa16d1$42a1cd83$21412@FUSE.NET...
>>
>>> The real mystery here (IMO), is why the Intel video driver suddenly
>>>went from being an optional update to a critical update. I'm assuming it
>>>was a glitch on Microsoft's part. I also let Automatic Updates install
>>
>>this
>>
>>>driver, not knowing what it was until later. As far as I can tell,
>>
>>nothing
>>
>>>has been changed on my computer. I already had the latest Intel driver
>>>installed. So I assume if Automatic Updates tried to install an older
>>
>>one,
>>
>>>XP would have prevented this.
>>
>>Enabling Automatic Updates is an essential part of MS's security initiative.
>>Most all folks should enable Automatic Updates except for a few insecure
>>sysadmins who now spend most their time doing manual WinUp for folks.
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
>Boy am I confused.

Join the crowd. Here's an example for those still following this
rather contentious thread:

Client machine, Dell Dimension 8250. nVidia GeForce4 MX 420 graphics

nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

Which one should I use and why, and how come WinUp is still
complaining about wanting 52.16 when I have 71.89 installed, and why
is a video driver a "High Priority Update"?

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote in message
news:ryDqe.72953$NZ1.28872@fe09.lga...
> Ben Myers wrote:
> > Many large corporate IT organizations with tens of thousands of
computers and
> > home-grown apps would take strong exception to the use of automatic
updates.
>
> So do some computer savvy retired programmers with just a desktop & a
> notebook. One of the *last* things I would ever do is to enable MS to
> update my computer without any intervention from me. Seems a little like
> giving Tony Soprano access to my checking account.

How many infected bot PCs owned by the unaware are all over the Inet causing
problems for everyone? The correct advice is that all should enable MS's
Automatic Updates. That improves the general security environment for all.
Any of you that end up with bot-s and disabled Automatic Updates shown be
drawn and quartered.

This kind of advice by alleged experts has been infecting the PC industry
for years. Just recently a real expert at MS finally got in public view
that one should write down their strong passwords and keep them in a
convenient and modestly secure location. Not doing so simply results in
weak and always the same passwords which is MUCH WORSE than the occasional
exposure of the password note.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>The correct advice is that all should enable MS's
>Automatic Updates.

Can't agree with you there, Fred. That advice would have resulted in
about 10 percent of PCs becoming inoperative when XP SP2 came out.
I've got lots of examples of WinUp getting things wrong, where blindly
installing stuff breaks things.

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:003ma15f32d0of5ddf0ogib3ntfsm21sum@4ax.com...
> axipolti@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Boy am I confused.
>
> Join the crowd. Here's an example for those still following this
> rather contentious thread:
>
> Client machine, Dell Dimension 8250. nVidia GeForce4 MX 420 graphics
>
> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.

> Which one should I use and why, and how come WinUp is still
> complaining about wanting 52.16 when I have 71.89 installed, and why
> is a video driver a "High Priority Update"?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

>Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.

nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yes they are. He's just wrong.

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:cjima19bllbvu6s60idn5mgvakh1mcpfv6@4ax.com...
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
>><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
>>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
>>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
>>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"
>
>>Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.
>
> nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
Version: 71.89
Release Date: April 14, 2005
WHQL Certified

>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
Release Date: 05/06/2003

>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"

[Grrr, that machine is already in the 'return to client' pile, I'll
haul it out and put it back on the bench later...]
[Much later...]

"Date last published: 8/2/2004"

OK, now what?

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jqCdncW0TI01yzbfRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
> Yes they are. He's just wrong.

Without release dates they're meaningless.

> <William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
> news:cjima19bllbvu6s60idn5mgvakh1mcpfv6@4ax.com...
> > "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> >><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
> >>> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
> >>> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
> >>> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"
> >
> >>Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.
> >
> > nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?
> >
>

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:6fima1liaepoe3m748a7gmld7h46cpla6d@4ax.com...
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> >The correct advice is that all should enable MS's
> >Automatic Updates.
>
> Can't agree with you there, Fred. That advice would have resulted in
> about 10 percent of PCs becoming inoperative when XP SP2 came out.

Utter nonsense. Over 99% of folks installed SP2 with no significant
problems.

> I've got lots of examples of WinUp getting things wrong, where blindly
> installing stuff breaks things.

I'm sure that's true in the systems around you where good procedure is in
doubt.

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:cjima19bllbvu6s60idn5mgvakh1mcpfv6@4ax.com...
> "fred" <fred@hotmaim.con> wrote:
> ><William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
> >> nVidia WWWebsite - V71.89 drivers (these are installed)
> >> Dell WWWebsite - V42.38 drivers
> >> WinUp - 52.16 in "High Priority Updates"
>
> >Repost with release dates. Without them your post is meaningless.
>
> nVidia's version numbers aren't monotonic and increasing by date?

Not relevant. Versions PLUS release dates are always needed.