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

Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective

C.W. (
Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:15:57 -0600

> *From*: / Justin Time <>
> *Subject*: / Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective/
> *Date*: / 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.

And why do you need to know this? You just implied you don't want the
details. To you, it doesn't matter is they say "see KB12345" or
"click here for details" -- ignore it. But for me, I may recognize
the KB number and am glad they put it there; so ignore it.

I'm ignoring the fact that you could type the KB phrase in any search
box of any Microsoft web page of any Microsoft website (or even just
click on it as someone pointed out), as well as any search engine and
probably hundreds of other sites, and get the exact information....

> 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.

So, what you really want is a very short, but very precise decription
of the exact problem? Ha! And when 90% of them say "fixes IE" you'll
whine that it's not enough unformation [sic] from them.

Given what you've written, are you even familiar enough with your
computer to determine which Windows sub-functions you're using and
which you're not? If the KB info is too detailed for you, you need to
apply all the patches, because the KB info spells out exactly what is

> 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!

And now you complain that slow speed is your biggest problem, but faster
speeds are not worth it.

Admit it; either you just like to complain, or you want it to just
magically say "Justin, this (does|does not) affect you."

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective"
Go to Previous message: "Re: Fire Cripples 2 Subway Lines"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective"
Next in thread: "Re: Review: Microsoft Anti-Spyware Ineffective"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page