"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.2285bebafc4a7f0f989728@news.motzarella.or g...
>> My point is that you're essentially full of schitt. Of course, I say
>> that
>> in the most respectful manner possible.
>
> Not a problem - schitts' brother is thataway ->
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/30/xp_sp3_delayed/
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/vista_sp1
> _automatic_download_halted/
>
> "...forced to halt automatic updates to Vista service pack one (SP1)
> because of glitches with its Dynamics Retail Management System (RMS),
> which has already laid waste to XP SP3"
>
>> MS would be absolutely inundated with litigation.
>
> About time, too !
Suite!
Whisky tango foxtrot (WTF) does this have to do with FORCED or
surreptitious/stealth upgrades against the end-user's will? Nothing. My
point remains about litigation.
A quick search of my posts will reveal that I'm no MS apologist.
Beyond that, I have no freaking idea what point you're trying to make,
Colin. And I say that noting your many years participating in and
contributing to this very NG......... ???
> Whisky tango foxtrot (WTF) does this have to do with FORCED or
> surreptitious/stealth upgrades against the end-user's will? Nothing. My
> point remains about litigation.
Well, the first set of links I posted pointed out that M$ *had* forced
updates on people, whether automatic updates were switched off or not.
Then someone made a point about M$ wouldn't break point of sale stuff,
and I provided links to show their most recent updates would break
some of that too.
MS delayed XP SP3 again because it would break point of sale systems. They
are changing the update process so that a POS will not allow the update. So
technically, since it hasn't been released, it hasn't broken any POS systems
yet.
"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.22864ba42e28bb6098972b@news.motzarella.or g...
>> Whisky tango foxtrot (WTF) does this have to do with FORCED or
>> surreptitious/stealth upgrades against the end-user's will? Nothing. My
>> point remains about litigation.
>
> Well, the first set of links I posted pointed out that M$ *had* forced
> updates on people, whether automatic updates were switched off or not.
>
> Then someone made a point about M$ wouldn't break point of sale stuff,
> and I provided links to show their most recent updates would break
> some of that too.
On May 2, 11:16*pm, "S.Lewis" <Gossa...@interesting.com> wrote:
>
> Could MS do it? *Yeah, I'm sure they could. *Would they do it and risk the
> potential litigation and (further) PR damage? I really don't think so.
>
Ahhh, you were bowling along until that remark...........you sort of
took your eye off the ball then, didn't you?
Would they do it = yes.
Why would they do it = because they're big enough to be able to.
"Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:03bc5125-ae9e-46a8-b414-0ccffe567a48@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 11:16 pm, "S.Lewis" <Gossa...@interesting.com> wrote:
>
> Could MS do it? Yeah, I'm sure they could. Would they do it and risk the
> potential litigation and (further) PR damage? I really don't think so.
>
Ahhh, you were bowling along until that remark...........you sort of
took your eye off the ball then, didn't you?
Would they do it = yes.
Why would they do it = because they're big enough to be able to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Understanding that MS loves money if nothing else, I don't think they'd risk
the potential (and significant) financial legal liabilities associated with
such.
Losses to corporate customers (depending on the severity of malfunction
caused by a forced patch or service pack, or new browser etc) could
literally be in the billions of dollars.
In my limited experience, what those (end-user) corporations do currently is
block the patches on the usual "patch/update Tuesday".
They then implement them corporate wide during a *scheduled* downtime (or
for a global corporation, at a time most universally convenient to cease
operations at all facilities) with a live/global centralized I/T conference
call with connections to teams at each involved facility to test/gauge
impact of the patch(es) within all aspects of concern in a given facility.
If a given patch breaks things and cannot be quickly corrected, it is then
'backed out' until a resolution/fix can be put into place.
I don't underestimate MS' arrogance or stupidity at all nor they're love of
money.
"S.Lewis" <Gossamer@interesting.com> wrote in message
news:0X_Sj.48174$%15.25000@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:03bc5125-ae9e-46a8-b414-0ccffe567a48@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 11:16 pm, "S.Lewis" <Gossa...@interesting.com> wrote:
>>
>> Could MS do it? Yeah, I'm sure they could. Would they do it and risk the
>> potential litigation and (further) PR damage? I really don't think so.
>>
>
> Ahhh, you were bowling along until that remark...........you sort of
> took your eye off the ball then, didn't you?
>
> Would they do it = yes.
>
> Why would they do it = because they're big enough to be able to.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> Understanding that MS loves money if nothing else, I don't think they'd
> risk the potential (and significant) financial legal liabilities
> associated with such.
>
> Losses to corporate customers (depending on the severity of malfunction
> caused by a forced patch or service pack, or new browser etc) could
> literally be in the billions of dollars.
>
> In my limited experience, what those (end-user) corporations do currently
> is block the patches on the usual "patch/update Tuesday".
>
> They then implement them corporate wide during a *scheduled* downtime (or
> for a global corporation, at a time most universally convenient to cease
> operations at all facilities) with a live/global centralized I/T
> conference call with connections to teams at each involved facility to
> test/gauge impact of the patch(es) within all aspects of concern in a
> given facility.
>
> If a given patch breaks things and cannot be quickly corrected, it is then
> 'backed out' until a resolution/fix can be put into place.
>
> I don't underestimate MS' arrogance or stupidity at all nor they're love
> of money.
>
>
> Stew
>
>
On Sat, 3 May 2008 09:51:06 -0500, "S.Lewis"
<Gossamer@interesting.com> wrote:
>
>"S.Lewis" <Gossamer@interesting.com> wrote in message
>news:0X_Sj.48174$%15.25000@bignews7.bellsouth.net ...
>>
>> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>> news:03bc5125-ae9e-46a8-b414-0ccffe567a48@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 2, 11:16 pm, "S.Lewis" <Gossa...@interesting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Could MS do it? Yeah, I'm sure they could. Would they do it and risk the
>>> potential litigation and (further) PR damage? I really don't think so.
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh, you were bowling along until that remark...........you sort of
>> took your eye off the ball then, didn't you?
>>
>> Would they do it = yes.
>>
>> Why would they do it = because they're big enough to be able to.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Understanding that MS loves money if nothing else, I don't think they'd
>> risk the potential (and significant) financial legal liabilities
>> associated with such.
>>
>> Losses to corporate customers (depending on the severity of malfunction
>> caused by a forced patch or service pack, or new browser etc) could
>> literally be in the billions of dollars.
>>
>> In my limited experience, what those (end-user) corporations do currently
>> is block the patches on the usual "patch/update Tuesday".
>>
>> They then implement them corporate wide during a *scheduled* downtime (or
>> for a global corporation, at a time most universally convenient to cease
>> operations at all facilities) with a live/global centralized I/T
>> conference call with connections to teams at each involved facility to
>> test/gauge impact of the patch(es) within all aspects of concern in a
>> given facility.
>>
>> If a given patch breaks things and cannot be quickly corrected, it is then
>> 'backed out' until a resolution/fix can be put into place.
>>
>> I don't underestimate MS' arrogance or stupidity at all nor they're love
>> of money.
>>
>>
>> Stew
>>
>>
>
>****. "Their" love of money.
>
Apparently they worship money to the "n" degree .
Too bad because they still have the potential to be a good company in
terms of software evolution but I think their corporate way of
thinking interferes with this. I don't deny they know how to make
money but personally I don't care for the way they make it. Yeah I
know they could care less what I think.
On Fri, 2 May 2008 23:24:56 +0100, Colin Wilson
<REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
>> Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base and
>> patients die?
>
>Hospitals shouldn't be so stupid as to use windows on critical
>systems. Indeed, it's against their EULA IIRC to do so.
>
>So, after they've already broken who knows how many point of sale
>systems with their last broken SP3 update for XP, and done the same
>for Vista, your point was... ?
What OS should hospitals use if not Windows? Doesn't Epic's software
run on Windows?
So SP3 is really a POS that should not be installed on a POS??? ... Ben Myers
On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:26:44 -0500, "WSZsr" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>MS delayed XP SP3 again because it would break point of sale systems. They
>are changing the update process so that a POS will not allow the update. So
>technically, since it hasn't been released, it hasn't broken any POS systems
>yet.
>
>"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
>in message news:MPG.22864ba42e28bb6098972b@news.motzarella.or g...
>>> Whisky tango foxtrot (WTF) does this have to do with FORCED or
>>> surreptitious/stealth upgrades against the end-user's will? Nothing. My
>>> point remains about litigation.
>>
>> Well, the first set of links I posted pointed out that M$ *had* forced
>> updates on people, whether automatic updates were switched off or not.
>>
>> Then someone made a point about M$ wouldn't break point of sale stuff,
>> and I provided links to show their most recent updates would break
>> some of that too.
Re: OT: XP sp3 
. 
Linear Mode
