Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just another reason why Macs are better
- Thread starter yg17
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
clayjohanson said:
very valid to people who say other wise, Even apple releases updates. Also Apple pushed you to buy updated OS's. Other wise you would all still be running that POS knows as OSX 10.0 it took them to 10.2 to get it where it should of been at the release
gekko513 said:
Way too true, I do tech support and get calls along the line of "yeah, I noticed the problem 3+ weeks ago and it's just stopped, what now"
clayjohanson said:
No, no, no. Don't ever stop saying "Well, it should just work."
I'm not trying at all to counter your point about knowing how to properly use a computer. People should, I agree. But there is a separate point that you're discarding simply because you don't like the sound of a statement.
"It should just work" is what gave us the gorgeous, useable UI on top of rock solid UNIX in OS X. Hell, it gave us the original Mac. If enough people on the Microsoft side said "It should just work," someday, it might finally all fall into place.
Your car analogy holds true for the state-of-the-art PC with XP SP2; but the issue is that on a car, all those parts PHYSICALLY WILL WEAR OUT after that much time. How many parts of a computer can be expected to wear out after 5 years? Maybe one of the fans, if you never blow it out or clean it? Software isn't a "Moving Part" per se, and there should be an ideal in which it doesn't require maintenance.
That said, we aren't there yet, Mac or PC, though I bet there are a lucky few Mac users out there (who don't know who they are) who've gotten 5 years out of a machine without software maintenance.
At any rate, "It should just work" should continue to be the mantra until everything just does.
-rand()
It's funny how everyone hated OSX and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to transition over from OS9. Now, everyone is singing the praises of a pre-emptive UNIX-based operating system, free from viruses, and solid reliability. I think if Macs stayed in OS9, Apple would have folded long ago.
maybe some people can't use the service packs. i installed SP2 and was unable to use my computer for a month. i wasn't able to save any of my info, and i ended up having to reformat the hard drive and do a clean install. people with computers (and i'm running a computer made in 2002, it has a pentium 4) that are older than one or two years cannot use these service packs, therefore, they are useless to many PC users.clayjohanson said:
bryantm3 said:
Huh? That's just flat out wrong. I have seen computers 4 and 5 years updated to SP2 that work like a charm. One of my older computers, a 2000 HP, was the first one I updates with absolutely no problems. It worked like a charm. The service packs work extremely well and this "so-called test" should not have been run without it. Like I said earlier, interesting results. The test itself is flawed to say the least.
Yup. When was XP released?
2001.
You're going to run a test, with software that hasn't been updated in 4 years. Why don't you test OSX without any of its updates (a la 10.0)? I mean, who uses that anymore? And who has stock, XP anymore? Even the dumbest people I know have SP1, and have auto-update on (installs it in the middle of the night, if you leave it on).
Here's a better test:
Fine a XP SP2 system. Open Firefox.
Use Ad-aware SE next morning. Tell me how much spyware you find.
*edit*
reading your post again, I found the MAIN source of the adware/spyware intrustion:
You really think installing something like that is going to be clean? Honestly. Why do you think they PAY you for viewing these ads? Before your experiment even started, it was already flawed. You had just installed spyware RIGHT at the beginning, and you didn't even know it. Tell me, installing something that PAYs you for looking at ads, what does your gut say about that?
2001.
You're going to run a test, with software that hasn't been updated in 4 years. Why don't you test OSX without any of its updates (a la 10.0)? I mean, who uses that anymore? And who has stock, XP anymore? Even the dumbest people I know have SP1, and have auto-update on (installs it in the middle of the night, if you leave it on).
Here's a better test:
Fine a XP SP2 system. Open Firefox.
Use Ad-aware SE next morning. Tell me how much spyware you find.
*edit*
reading your post again, I found the MAIN source of the adware/spyware intrustion:
You really think installing something like that is going to be clean? Honestly. Why do you think they PAY you for viewing these ads? Before your experiment even started, it was already flawed. You had just installed spyware RIGHT at the beginning, and you didn't even know it. Tell me, installing something that PAYs you for looking at ads, what does your gut say about that?
Mav451 said:
yep, i said that previously... you agree to downloading the infected spyware software when you agreed to install the software that displays the ads...
If there is a windows xp user w/o service pack 2, 1) you are stupid, 2) you will automatically be downloading it no matter what (microsoft's anti-SP2 block (so sp2 won't download for dial up, etc.) expires this month)
dotdotdot said:
It does not make you download load it. What it did was prevent windows update from getting it or showing it as a crictical update. After that date windows update will download if it is set to download updates and when you go on line to windows update you will see it there as well but either way people should be going SP2 soon
"it should just work" in terms of automobiles is what gave us automatic transmissions, starters, and fuel injection. I'd say innovation does need to play a role to cater to the average consumer.
And for the record, I've seen a lot of people dismiss those "critical update" popups. It either "sounds like something i don't know about" or they think it's adware! Who can trust software when ads appear that look just like normal windows, even when not web browsing? Owning a PC is tremendously intimidating and confusing for the average user. Studies show many simply hope it "does what they want this time" and don't trust them, let alone pay enough attention to maintain them. Look for the thread on Digital Distress Syndrome, the butt of many jokes but in fact a real occurrence.
And for the record, I've seen a lot of people dismiss those "critical update" popups. It either "sounds like something i don't know about" or they think it's adware! Who can trust software when ads appear that look just like normal windows, even when not web browsing? Owning a PC is tremendously intimidating and confusing for the average user. Studies show many simply hope it "does what they want this time" and don't trust them, let alone pay enough attention to maintain them. Look for the thread on Digital Distress Syndrome, the butt of many jokes but in fact a real occurrence.
So Im going to try to re-run this with SP2.
I went to Windows Update, it searched for available updates and SP2 wasn't in the list. Your average user won't see SP2 in the available updates list and probably won't download it. Well, if they do what I did and dig around the Microsoft site to find the link to SP2 hidden away, when it tells you how to get SP2, it tells you to go to Windows Update which didn't even have it. If it wasn't for a Google search, I probably wouldn't have found a link anywhere to get SP2.
So I still think this was a somewhat fair test. As said before, many people disable the auto updates or tell it not to install them. And if they go to Windows Update and SP2 isn't in the list, they won't get it. If they hear about SP2 and go to Microsoft's website and it tells them to use Windows Update to download SP2, they'll probably give up.
And once again, I did not download software to display the ads. It's all done automatically in IE. SP2 or not, automatic installation of spyware is something that should never be possible in the first place in a web browser.
I went to Windows Update, it searched for available updates and SP2 wasn't in the list. Your average user won't see SP2 in the available updates list and probably won't download it. Well, if they do what I did and dig around the Microsoft site to find the link to SP2 hidden away, when it tells you how to get SP2, it tells you to go to Windows Update which didn't even have it. If it wasn't for a Google search, I probably wouldn't have found a link anywhere to get SP2.
So I still think this was a somewhat fair test. As said before, many people disable the auto updates or tell it not to install them. And if they go to Windows Update and SP2 isn't in the list, they won't get it. If they hear about SP2 and go to Microsoft's website and it tells them to use Windows Update to download SP2, they'll probably give up.
And once again, I did not download software to display the ads. It's all done automatically in IE. SP2 or not, automatic installation of spyware is something that should never be possible in the first place in a web browser.
install MS antispyware to, to see what you get with that on.
I would like to see those results. Thanks
-Tech^
I would like to see those results. Thanks
-Tech^
Tech^salvager said:
After AdAware ran, MS Anti Spyware picked up 25 or so more things, and neither of them un-hijacked IE which was popping up ads at random
um... I use a PC all the time and I have no problems. Solution? If you're going to use IE turn off your ActiveX controls. Otherwise... I use firefox which can block popups, get rid of ads from your websites, etc.
Basically a PC sucks if you dont know how to use it. It takes no time at all just a little knowledge.
Basically a PC sucks if you dont know how to use it. It takes no time at all just a little knowledge.
paulwhannel said:
by that argument then most mac users dismiss all there updates as well.
I seen SP2 in crictal updates. It has to be downloaded and installed by it self. First the other updates would of been installed. After the required restarted SP2 would be downloaded. It just a small download that scans the computer to see what parts of SP2 you need and it downloads them and installs it from there. Restarted and you are done. That restart will take quite a bit longer than normal because it practicly like installing a new OS. THen you log in and that will take longer than normal since all the Acounts have to be rebuilt and depending on how larger the user acount was will determine how much extra time.
hmm ok I'm gonna run the same test you are just to check this out and see what you mean.yg17 said:
btw my system specs are
XP with sp2
MS anitspyware
IE and advant usage
btw yg17 can you give me the url to the site.
This http://www.surfjunky.com/ makes you sign terms. I thought yg17 said he didn't have to sign anything? looks like he had to sign up atleast.
Tech^salvager said:
I had to agree to the terms when I made an account (which unless I missed it, dont mention installing spyware) but I didn't have to manually download and install a thing on the PC for the SJ program to work. Hell, you can sign up and start using it in Safari and see what I mean. The sites they pop up can install that junk without permission which is what worries me
Many "average" PC users don't maintain their machines. I have two roomates that don't take the time to update their virus, spyware, or windows updates. It's not a concern to them.
Since, I own the networking hardware and pay for the majority of our Internet service, I disable their wireless internet if my router notices a large amount of questionable traffic coming from their PCs. It forces them to have to come to me, and I can make sure their computers are safe.
Since, I own the networking hardware and pay for the majority of our Internet service, I disable their wireless internet if my router notices a large amount of questionable traffic coming from their PCs. It forces them to have to come to me, and I can make sure their computers are safe.
I didn't bother with any of this. I simply downloaded the redistributable version of Windows XP SP2 (a 266 MB self-extracting compressed executable archive), keep it archived, and copy it to my Windows machine any time I feel like reinstalling Windows.Timelessblur said:
When Windows restarts after installing SP2 in this way, the first thing it does is ask you to choose an automatic update setting. Then it restarts again before going through the process you mentioned.