TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective

Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective

Justin Time (
25 Jan 2005 05:52:41 -0800

Well Dave, you appear to have caught the thrust of my post about
Microsoft referring you to a KBxxxxx and then not defining that KB
stands for Knowledge Base and the information that can be found in the
Knowledge Base.

My complaint is that with a slow dial-up modem, why should I have to
spend time, and it can be significant, having to search two or three
different places for what should be obvious information. If Microsoft
just plainly stated the purpose of the patch was to "address security
problems in XXX" or something similar in the patch description on the
Windows Update site (just as they used to do a couple of years ago),
then the problem would be solved. If I, or someone else wanted to
find out more about the patch, then I could go to the backup
documentation in the Knowledge Base. But, with the descriptions they
are using, how would the average person know a patch addressed
functions they were using.

As to the thought that "every patch they put out must be good" I say
this: If you don't use some functions why do you need to patch
programs that are never accessed? The most common dial-up speed I can
get at my home because of all the different SLICs and converters
between me and the CO about 48,000 cable feet away is 24K. If I want
to spend over 4 hours downloading a patch, then I would like to know
up front what it is supposed to fix. (And cable broadband at $50.00+
per month isn't worth it!)

Rodgers Platt

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: Vonage at Bestbuy?"
Go to Previous message: Barry Margolin: "Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective"
Next in thread: C.W.: "Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page