Middle Finger Salute
Finger@discussions.microsoft.com Middle Finger
from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came back, the computer had
rebooted because of an automatic update. I lost about two hours of work.
Zilbandy
I guess maybe next time you'll save your work before taking a break. I
wonder if that middle finger salute shouldn't have been to yourself?
:/
--
Zilbandy
M
And you don't even realize that it's your fault for setting Auto Updates
to download and install without your input. You got what you deserved
and maybe now you'll take a look at what your settings are for Auto
Update and change them accordingly.
M
Shenan Stanley
Yep - sucks when you don't save.
Suggest you also look into backups (nothing to do with this problem, but it
might prevent other issues in the future for you.)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Michael
news:7111C7B4-C882-4F80...@microsoft.com...
> This is a middle finger salute for the folks at Microsoft. I walked away
> from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came back, the computer had
> rebooted because of an automatic update. I lost about two hours of work.
>
Maybe you should take your middle finger and shove it up your ass. YOU
control the update process. Educate yourself with that finger after you
remove it from your ass.
--
"Don't pick a fight with an old man.
If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
David Dickinson
"Zilbandy" <z...@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:d32lf5l03hg9ar9jo...@4ax.com...
David Dickinson
how dumb your reply it. A proper automatic update procedure would have
stopped the automatic restart if work had not been saved. It's not like
that's a difficult condition to detect.
David Dickinson
"M" <m...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message news:hde3ir$me4$1...@aioe.org...
Shenan Stanley
> This is a middle finger salute for the folks at Microsoft. I
> walked away from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came
> back, the computer had rebooted because of an automatic update. I
> lost about two hours of work.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Yep - sucks when you don't save.
>
> Suggest you also look into backups (nothing to do with this
> problem, but it might prevent other issues in the future for you.)
In addition - turn off "automatic updates" - or at least change the settings
so *you* have control of when updates are either downloaded or installed or
both.
Also - how did you conclude it was an automatic update that caused the
reboot? Popup? Event log? Update History?
In any case there are two real hard-core rules to computer usage.
1) Save often.
2) Backup important data.
The situation you are in would have been end-result-equal had there been a
power outage (of any sort) or hard disk drive failure or some other
component failure in the machine. Heck - someone else walking up and
closing the application you were using and clicking "no" to "save work"
would be equivalent.
Your saving your work often and/or at least right before you grant full
control of the computer to the universe when walking away is just common
sense/wise. ;-)
David Dickinson
apologies). I tell my users that anything they leave on the screen
overnight that isn't saved is going to get lost, but they sometimes need to
experience the consequences of not saving more than once.
David Dickinson
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFcrO4uY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
> This is a middle finger salute for the folks at Microsoft. I
> walked away from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came
> back, the computer had rebooted because of an automatic update. I
> lost about two hours of work.
M wrote:
> And you don't even realize that it's your fault for setting Auto
> Updates to download and install without your input. You got what
> you deserved and maybe now you'll take a look at what your settings
> are for Auto Update and change them accordingly.
David Dickinson wrote:
> Perhaps a little thought before replying would have helped you
> understand how dumb your reply it. A proper automatic update
> procedure would have stopped the automatic restart if work had not
> been saved. It's not like that's a difficult condition to detect.
A little effort on the one component in this equation with sentient
abilities isn't above a certain level of expectation.
- Worked on it for two hours.
- Walked away from the computer for 30 minutes.
- Could have - at any time - clicked "save" or had configured whatever
application being used to automatically save on occasion.
Yes - there might be an exception: it was crunching data, processing it for
two hours. And whatever process it was doing could not be paused and its
current status saved. Seen it. This doesn't sound like that - but could
be. And unless the OP is just bored (or you are the OP) I doubt they will
ever return here to tell the tale.
What was the wise choice there? It's essentially common knowledge that if
left to its default settings - Windows *will* install updates and reboot as
needed, when needed.
Could the process be improved (like *try* to do checks for unsaved work in
the thousand of possible applications no one may ever know anything about
and/or for processes that are running above a certain percentage of the CPU
or something) - sure - but it has not.
However, one has been given the ability to configure their own settings.
One can determine how/if Windows will retrieve/install updates for them. If
someone will be doing something where they don't want to lose work (for
whatever reason) - then they should definitely make sure such things are
done. It doesn't (by any stretch of the imagination) cover every situation
that might come up and lose the work if not properly saved - but it is one
less thing to worry about.
Automatic Updates are *not* new - nor are the reboot 'issues' people have.
Live and learn.
In any case there are two real hard-core rules to computer usage.
1) Save often.
2) Backup important data.
The situation the OP is in would have been end-result-equal had
there been a power outage (of any sort) or hard disk drive failure
or some other component failure in the machine. Heck - someone
else walking up and closing the application they were using and
clicking "no" to "save work" would be equivalent.
Saving your work often and/or at least right before you grant full
control of the computer to the universe when walking away is just common
sense/wise. ;-)
In the end - the sentient being could have accounted for the flaws in the
equipment they were using more easily/aptly/quicky than the equipment they
are using can account for the flaws in the sentient being.
Shenan Stanley
> This is a middle finger salute for the folks at Microsoft. I
> walked away from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came
> back, the computer had rebooted because of an automatic update. I
> lost about two hours of work.
Zilbandy wrote:
> I guess maybe next time you'll save your work before taking a
> break. I wonder if that middle finger salute shouldn't have been to
> yourself? :/
David Dickinson wrote:
> Wow. What a stupid, unthinking reply!
A little effort on the one component in this equation with sentient
M
> Perhaps a little thought before replying would have helped you
> understand how dumb your reply it. A proper automatic update procedure
No such thing in Windows.
> would have stopped the automatic restart if work had not been saved.
> It's not like that's a difficult condition to detect.
Care for some cheese with your whine?
M
David Dickinson
"Yes - there might be an exception: it was crunching data, processing it for
two hours."
Thus, my replies. Besides, the automatic restart "feature" assumes that all
Windows users are experts and understand that they should configure their
updates manually. That is a ridiculous assumption to make for a
consumer-oriented product to make. Note that Microsoft encourages people to
enable fully automatic updates. That's inviting problems like this.
Perhaps the user should have saved his work, perhaps it wasn't possible.
Nevertheless, the OS probably could have prevented the problem.
David
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezNKcCvY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
<above is link to entire conversation>
David Dickinson wrote:
> Shenan Stanley said:
> "Yes - there might be an exception: it was crunching data,
> processing it for two hours."
>
> Thus, my replies. Besides, the automatic restart "feature" assumes
> that all Windows users are experts and understand that they should
> configure their updates manually. That is a ridiculous assumption
> to make for a consumer-oriented product to make. Note that
> Microsoft encourages people to enable fully automatic updates. That's
> inviting problems like this. Perhaps the user should have
> saved his work, perhaps it wasn't possible. Nevertheless, the OS
> probably could have prevented the problem.
Perhaps the user should have saved? I'd say, "No doubt", if the option was
available.
In the end - the result COULD have been the same in the ways I listed and in
other ways.
By default Microsoft could have set automatic updates to only check and let
you know some are available. The end-user could have changed it to fully
automatic because they did not want to be bothered in the middle of doing
something they deemed important with the message (I've seen users get
frustrated like that.) No save = loss.
The power could have gone out to the person's home/business - no save =
loss.
Let's say they have a UPS (battery backup) - maybe its software cannot
identify the application to know it needs to save something or the software
was never installed by the user and/or the power outage was too long for the
UPS to keep the system up throughout - no save = loss.
Let's say there is someone else involved who wants to use the computer.
They sit down and see that the last person did not close everything and so
they close it. It may/may not ask to save, and if it does the person
may/may not say "yes" - after all - not their stuff. Or maybe the screen
was locked and they couldn't unlock it so they held the power button down
until it turned off/back on. No save = loss.
Let's make the other person/entity less 'involved' in a direct manner.
Let's say they stumble in and trip on the power cord, they are looking for
something they dropped and knock something loose, etc. No save = loss.
It's almost always the end-user's responsibility to learn how to properly
utilize *any* tool they get based around the manner they will be using it.
If you will be using something to crunch data for hours at a time and you
don't plan on sitting there staring at the screen to make sure the computer
does it right - you would be wise to take a few precautions... Large
Battery Back-UPS, Turning off Automatic Updates of *all* kinds, might even
want to disconnect from the Internet completely while crunching said data.
You might even have a system just for this that doesn't have AV software
than might slow the process down.
If you will be typing up some long document (or even many short ones) - save
often. That one is so simple - there's not much in ways of alternatives.
And especially if you plan on leaving the room where you are doing all this
work - save right before you leave - and I might even go so far as to say
you might copy the saved document to external media before you left as an
extra precaution.
The thing here is - no matter what - the person giving the middle finger to
Microsoft could have lost their data. They are blaming Microsoft because it
is convenient and the actual thing that happened (that could have been
prevented.) Yep - the automatic reboot of Windows Update strikes again -
but it doesn't take much of an Internet search to see the same thing
happening since about 2001 over and over, making it *not* an inkown without
solution. If a person uses their computer much - they have likely seen the
popups before.
Posting that here - in a peer-to-peer newsgroup - served no purpose except
them blowing off steam. They weren't *looking* for an answer. I figure
they have since either realized the other half-dozen things they could
have/should have done to prevent this and may be implementing some of those
things now.
Cars can have sensors in them detecting when an object is too close and take
action - have been able to do that for years (and a few have this
implemented) - but not many do - because there is some expectation on the
sentient being's abilities to operate the equipment and the consequences of
taking the action is not something you might want the system deciding for
you. (Some joker throws a ball on the highway in front of your car, the
sensor detects it and slams on your brakes, the kid on the motorcycle behind
you has no time to react...)
Truthfully - no one here should have cared either way about this post. The
post had no question and warranted no response since this is a peer-to-peer
newsgroup and the odds someone who represents Microsoft is here/is answering
are fairly low (closer to nil.)
Given just the original message as a whole - I would assume the OP was
working on something they could have saved. One mouse click vs. two hours
of work lost - no matter in what way - the mistake is with the end-user.
Now - even if it was calculating something, crunching data - I'd say someone
who would be doing that should look into the ways they could have their
'crunching' interrupted and discover the viable solutions/prevention methods
against such catastrophe - as they may be doing now.
In the end - you walk into a room with a bad attitude and throw up your
middle finger and scream, "Up Yours Microsoft", it is unlikely the
conversations you will get into immediately following in that room will be,
"So how's your family? Haven't seen you around the bowling alley lately."
;-)
![PA Bear [MS MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXsf05hH-R8XChS3fXPPzfoO8FYYxAKhT86KfPnIELr3QJ9tQ=s40-c)
PA Bear [MS MVP]
yourself to blame!
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
www.banthecheck.com
PA Bear [MS MVP]
altogether.
M
> Shenan Stanley said:
> "Yes - there might be an exception: it was crunching data, processing it
> for two hours."
>
> Thus, my replies. Besides, the automatic restart "feature" assumes that
> all Windows users are experts and understand that they should configure
> their updates manually. That is a ridiculous assumption to make for a
> consumer-oriented product to make. Note that Microsoft encourages
> people to enable fully automatic updates. That's inviting problems like
> this. Perhaps the user should have saved his work, perhaps it wasn't
> possible. Nevertheless, the OS probably could have prevented the problem.
>
> David
You are assuming -- incorrectly -- that Microsoft cares about it's
paying customers: they don't. This is normal behavior for a company that
has a de facto monopoly.
M
David Dickinson
Are you assuming that everyone knows how to configure automatic updates?
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O1cq1%23vYKH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
David Dickinson
because he understood the potential problems -- as he should not be expected
to do. He is, after all, a user, not a qualified administrator or OS
designer. Microsoft's product should help users avoid these kinds of
problems. Instead, their recommendation causes them.
Blaming the user will not solve the problem, because more people than this
one are affected by it. Expecting everyone to be an expert is unfair,
short-sighted, and ignorant.
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23zdeW2v...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
> This is a middle finger salute for the folks at Microsoft. I
> walked away from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came
> back, the computer had rebooted because of an automatic update. I
> lost about two hours of work.
M wrote:
> And you don't even realize that it's your fault for setting Auto
> Updates to download and install without your input. You got what
> you deserved and maybe now you'll take a look at what your settings
> are for Auto Update and change them accordingly.
David Dickinson wrote:
> Perhaps a little thought before replying would have helped you
> understand how dumb your reply it. A proper automatic update
> procedure would have stopped the automatic restart if work had not
> been saved. It's not like that's a difficult condition to detect.
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> Nope, WYSIWYG. A properly configured AU would have avoided the
> problem altogether.
David Dickinson wrote:
> Are you assuming that everyone knows how to configure automatic
> updates?
... Or assuming that anyone who can find and post to these newsgroups via
the web page interface (as the OP did) might be able to utilize an Internet
search engine and type in a valid search that might show them how to do so?
Now is a great time to point you to one of the easiest ways to find
information on problems you may be having and solutions others have found:
Search using Google!
http://www.google.com/
(How-to: http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/basics.html )
Around this 'subject' some keywords might be...
windows "automatic update" configure
Using that *as typed* even gives you this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+%22automatic+update%22+configure
The first hit I get there is:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525
Well - that might be presumptious - the OP, in their temper tantrum, did not
specify their operating system. So let's cover one of the other operating
systems by changing the search keywords...
New keywords...
windows vista "automatic update" configure
Using that *as typed* even gives you this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+vista+%22automatic+update%22+configure
The third hit I get there is:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/updates/mu.aspx
Which gets you to here (for Windows Vista):
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/windowsupdate/learn/windowsvista.mspx
Well - you get the 'how to fish' idea... so let's just give you the
answers...
Courtesy of PA Bear MS MVP in another conversation *yesterday*...
Update your computer automatically
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/windowsupdate/automaticupdate.mspx
Automatic Updates in Win7
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/Updating-your-computer
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/Updates-frequently-asked-questions
!! =>
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/Change-how-Windows-installs-or-notifies-you-about-update
Automatic Updates in Vista
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/windowsupdate/learn/windowsvista.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/windowsupdate.mspx
=> Excellent Vista tutorial:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial140.html
How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525
How to configure and use Automatic Updates in Win2K:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327850
How to schedule automatic updates in WinXP, Win2K and Win2K03
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327838
That should cover it. ;-)
The whole point is still, "If one is unwilling to put in effort to ensure
their settings/way of doing things is the best/best for them - then they
have essentially decided to live with the consequences. If they didn't know
there were other options (assuming they did put forth effort to look - or
even if they didn't and just believe ignorance is a valid excuse) then the
first time it happens should be a learning experience and they should then
learn to keep it from happening in the future."
And since you said something similar - I assume you'd agree. ;-)
David Dickinson
appropriate criticism. The fact that he's getting a lot of useless crap in
return simply indicates that the responders, who should be qualified in
these matters, aren't thinking things through.
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:egVVQgwY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
<above is link to entire conversation>
David Dickinson wrote:
> He chose it because Microsoft told him it was the best thing to do,
> not because he understood the potential problems -- as he should
> not be expected to do. He is, after all, a user, not a qualified
> administrator or OS designer. Microsoft's product should help
> users avoid these kinds of problems. Instead, their recommendation
> causes them.
> Blaming the user will not solve the problem, because more people
> than this one are affected by it. Expecting everyone to be an
> expert is unfair, short-sighted, and ignorant.
Maybe the problem is assuming due-diligence. If you are going to be using
some tool to accomplish some task - you should not *assume* it will be setup
in such a way that is optimal for your needs.
Also - if you assume the OP knew *how* to configure automatic updates such
as when you said, "He chose it because Microsoft told him it was the best
thing to do", then you would think the OP would be wise enough to attempt to
understand how that works. It's the OPs computer, the OP should know how
their computer will be used and how best to use their computer and configure
it for their needs. That *will* take effort - and if they are unwilling to
put forth the effort to understand why someone told them to set something
some way - then they have assumed the risks.
The whole point is still, "If one is unwilling to put in effort to ensure
their settings/way of doing things is the best/best for them - then they
have essentially decided to live with the consequences. If they didn't know
there were other options (assuming they did put forth effort to look - or
even if they didn't and just believe ignorance is a valid excuse) then the
first time it happens should be a learning experience and they should then
learn or want to learn ways to keep it from happening in the future."
And since you said something similar - I assume you'd agree. ;-)
" I tell my users that anything they leave on the screen overnight that
isn't saved is going to get lost, but they sometimes need to experience the
consequences of not saving more than once."
It's not expecting everyone to be an 'expert' - but to understand their own
needs/wants and figure out what they need to do to make sure those
needs/wants are met.
Susan Bradley
Fact if you want to control patches, go into the control panel, Windwos
Update, choose download but do not install.
Fact Apple (which arguably has the potential to be a greater monopoly
than Microsoft) also reboots.
Make the choice to turn off automatic updates and control your own
patching. It's that simple.
Microsoft cares about their Enterprise customers that do pay.
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
<above is link to entire conversation>
David Dickinson wrote:
> Apparently, he did do a search, found his way here, and posted an
> appropriate criticism. The fact that he's getting a lot of useless
> crap in return simply indicates that the responders, who should be
> qualified in these matters, aren't thinking things through.
"Appropriate criticism"? Really?
So if someone has a problem with something you do - it is 'appropriate' to
come up to you in public, throw their middle finger up in your face and say,
"I went to the restroom last night I left my wallet on the bar next to you
(didn't say anything to you though) and you decided to go dance while I was
away and my wallet was stolen because you did not watch it."
Or - would you be 'set to' automatic protection of your friends wallet
(assuming you even noticed it) and thus - you should take the responsibility
for your friends careless actions? ;-)
Comparison key:
wallet = whatever work they lost
restroom trip = 30 minute walk away
Better options:
- Take the wallet with them (save).
- Ask you to watch it (configure automatic updates).
I have given plenty of useful information that would help the OP learn from
their mistake - but - it is their mistake. What they now do with the
multitude of suggestions I and others have given is up to them.
I cannot get the genie (two hours of work) back in the bottle (restored
work.) The milk is spilled - clean it up and move on. All one can do now
is give advice on how to do things better in the future.
Again - no questions were even asked as this was not a query and not a
criticism post; just an angry person venting their frustration. You may
have turned it into a criticism post by suggesting that perhaps the update
system could be done differently - but the OP, they did/have not presented a
criticism - just angry words stating what happened to them and whom they
place the blame on. ;-)
Michael
news:#WGFfUwY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> He chose it because Microsoft told him it was the best thing to do, not
> because he understood the potential problems -- as he should not be
> expected to do. He is, after all, a user, not a qualified administrator
> or OS designer. Microsoft's product should help users avoid these kinds
> of problems. Instead, their recommendation causes them.
>
> Blaming the user will not solve the problem, because more people than this
> one are affected by it. Expecting everyone to be an expert is unfair,
> short-sighted, and ignorant.
I totally agree with you. I mean what would the world be like if everyone
was permitted to buy a car without having ever driven before? I guess in
your little dank corner of the universe, that would be just fine. The same
rules should apply to computer users. A computer IQ test should be given to
all prospective buyers. As with everything else, if an ignorant moron could
purchase a firearm, why can't an intelligence challenged person buy a
computer, then complain "the thing don't do nothing when I press da button"
and expect help when he never plugged it in? Shit-stains like you don't
help the situation. You must be a computer salesmen or a cubicle monkey
working for one of the Big Box stores.
--
"Don't pick a fight with an old man.
If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
>
>
David Dickinson
one should expect him to be an expert. Why should average users be expected
to know why to configure Automatic Updates a certain way? Yes, this user
has learned a valuable lesson: whenever possible, save your work. But, as
you already noted, it's not always possible to save your work. If it wasn't
possible for him to save his work for one reason or another, then he's
learned nothing because there is nothing for him to learn except that it
might not be a good idea to follow Microsoft's recommendations.
The automatic restart feature, when coupled with Microsoft's recommendation
to use it, is a design flaw.
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23LGxiyw...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
David Dickinson
very first time: It presents a screen that recommends turning on Automatic
updates before the desktop is displayed.
You are still requiring that users know more about their computers and
operating systems than can be reasonably expected. There are literally
thousands upon thousands of settings in Windows, and I'll bet that not even
you understand them all. And please don't tell me that you've never had a
complaint about Windows. If you want to try to make that case, I'll call
you a liar right now.
The original poster, a typical user, has a legitimate complaint. Maybe he
could have mitigate the problem /if he had possessed more knowledge/, but we
must examine if that is a reasonable requirement. Given Microsoft's
recommendation, it clearly is not.
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23rv7Kow...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
<SNIPPED>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
<above is link to entire conversation>
David Dickinson wrote:
> Apparently, he did do a search, found his way here, and posted an
> appropriate criticism. The fact that he's getting a lot of useless
> crap in return simply indicates that the responders, who should be
> qualified in these matters, aren't thinking things through.
David Dickinson wrote:
> You're still missing the point: The OP is a /user/, not an expert, and no
> one should expect him to be an expert. Why should average users be
> expected to know why to configure Automatic Updates a certain way? Yes,
> this user has learned a valuable lesson: whenever possible, save your
> work. But, as you already noted, it's not always possible to save your
> work. If it wasn't possible for him to save his work for one reason or
> another, then he's learned nothing because there is nothing for him to
> learn except that it might not be a good idea to follow Microsoft's
> recommendations.
>
> The automatic restart feature, when coupled with Microsoft's
> recommendation to use it, is a design flaw.
You did not answer the question - you really thought their post was an
"appropriate criticism"?
My point was spelled out (albeit elsewhere in this conversation - but to
you.)
"It's not expecting everyone to be an 'expert' - but to understand their own
needs/wants and figure out what they need to do to make sure those
needs/wants are met."
If the OP learned that sometimes it is not okay to follow general
recommendations (especially if you do not understand the possible
consequences of them) - that's something. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Just because you believe you should trust some entity doesn't mean you
shouldn't verify that their *general* recommendation is the right one for
you in your *specific* situation. That's not asking for any expert
knowledge - just common sense.
Generally - you should take the stairs or elevator to get up/down inside a
building with multiple floors. When there's a fire - your situation
changes - so should your following of any general recommendation
recommendation.
Too extreme?
Generally - you should lock the doors to your home to protect the contents.
If you are holding an open-house to try and sell it - that might be
counter-productive.
Some places it is okay to park your car on the side of the road, except
during special events. Those special events are a specific situation which
changes the general recommendation.
The general recommendation may have to be ignored in specific situations.
If the user had a specific need - only they knew this and only they could be
responsible for their actions/preparation around it.
Is it a flaw? *shrug* I believe it may be - if you think people are sheep.
I cannot help but think of the weight-loss commercials - should everything
have Disclaimers?
"Your results may vary"
"These results may not be typical"
"The coffee you got fresh may be hot - be careful"
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
<above is link to entire conversation>
David Dickinson wrote:
> Maybe you've forgotten how XP works when you start up an OEM machine for
> the very first time: It presents a screen that recommends turning on
> Automatic updates before the desktop is displayed.
>
> You are still requiring that users know more about their computers and
> operating systems than can be reasonably expected. There are literally
> thousands upon thousands of settings in Windows, and I'll bet that not
> even you understand them all. And please don't tell me that you've never
> had a complaint about Windows. If you want to try to make that case, I'll
> call you a liar right now.
>
> The original poster, a typical user, has a legitimate complaint. Maybe he
> could have mitigate the problem /if he had possessed more knowledge/, but
> we must examine if that is a reasonable requirement. Given Microsoft's
> recommendation, it clearly is not.
The OP did not complain - he got angry and shot the finger.
Maybe to you that is complaining - to me that is not.
The OP did not ask a question, nothing to answer. The OP did not state how
things could be made better - so it was not a suggestion. There was no "It
would be better if..." - so it was not an appropriate criticism. It was an
angry reaction by a frustrated person.
Typical user or not - if the OP wants to use something and they do not learn
how to use it around their specific needs - that is *their* fault. Period.
They don't need to be an expert at all Windows settings - they just need to
figure out what might affect them while they are using it for whatever they
want to do.
Windows sometimes sucks - but usually it is a misunderstanding on the user's
part and after they get it explained - it seldom repeats itself. I know you
have the same experience given your comments already.
What Microsoft recommends, what you recommend, what I recommend - whatever -
should not be the final say in what the OP needs. Only the OP knows what
they will be doing - and obviously they were ignorant to the settings that
would be suited to their needs - but that doesn't exclude them from being
able to find out what they might should do given what they are wanting to
do/how they plan on using the computer.
They could have/can ask that question...
"I will be using my computer to run something that will need to run
continuously for many hours - and I won't be around all the time. What can
I do to make sure I don't get logged off, rebooted, lose power without
warning, etc. I just really need this process to complete." and then take
those suggestions, research and implement the ones that they can/see will
work for them.
Yes - everything is *in the past* - because the OP just flipped the bird,
made a snide comment and ran out of the room. Cannot teach someone who is
not here. ;-)
TaurArian
to reboot therefore it's your own fault for not backing up your work prior to
walking away from your computer.
It is common practice to back up your work as you go on the assumption tha
something could always go wrong, like electricity blackout, glitch in the
software you're using etc. It only takes a few seconds to save the current
project you're working on, but could take many hours to redo the same. Your
choice.
This is not your first update month and it won't be your last update month.
Suggest you look at resetting your WU settings and getting in the habit of
backing up your work as you go. This will avoid the problem next cycle of
updates.
K
--
Disclaimer: The information has been posted "as is" with no warranties or
guarantees and doesn''t give any rights.
David Dickinson
Shenan Stanley said:
"The OP did not complain - he got angry and shot the finger."
Okay, now you're abusing both semantics and logic, whereas before you were
simply avoiding logic. If honesty is not to be a part of this conversation,
then I prefer to let it end.
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OY5cb3xY...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
was my opinion that was not a complaint.
I guess walking up andf punching someone in the face *coud be* considered a
complaint. I woudn't consider it an appropriate one.
So I ask *again* - and you can be honest and answer the question if you
like...
"Appropriate criticism"? Really?
So if someone has a problem with something you do - it is 'appropriate' to
come up to you in public, throw their middle finger up in your face and say,
"I went to the restroom last night I left my wallet on the bar next to you
(didn't say anything to you though) and you decided to go dance while I was
away and my wallet was stolen because you did not watch it."
Or - would you be 'set to' automatic protection of your friends wallet
(assuming you even noticed it) and thus - you should take the responsibility
for your friends careless actions? ;-)
Comparison key:
wallet = whatever work they lost
restroom trip = 30 minute walk away
Better options:
- Take the wallet with them (save).
- Ask you to watch it (configure automatic updates).
I have given plenty of useful information that would help the OP learn from
their mistake - but - it is their mistake. What they now do with the
multitude of suggestions I and others have given is up to them.
I cannot get the genie (two hours of work) back in the bottle (restored
work.) The milk is spilled - clean it up and move on. All one can do now
is give advice on how to do things better in the future.
--
PA Bear [MS MVP]
Not RTFM is not an acceptable excuse.
How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525
PA Bear [MS MVP]
Not RTFM is not an acceptable excuse, David.
How to configure and use Automatic Updates in WinXP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525
David Dickinson
> Not RTFM is not an acceptable excuse, David.
Maybe it isn't, but it's the excuse that millions of users will use, and
there's not a damned thing that we professionals can do to change that
because it's a reasonable excuse. We tell them that computers can make
their lives easier or more enjoyable or more productive, but then we foist
on them steep but unnecessary learning requirements. The user's job should
not be and can not be to become a computer expert. That's our job.
Instead, we have to design smarter operating systems and applications,
because to not do so would be irresponsible on our part. We CAN design
smarter operating systems. We CAN allow users to have shallow learning
requirements. But what we cannot do is change the world. We can change our
products to meet the world's needs, and that is the true issue here.
"We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands
of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what
we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on." - Richard Feynman
"I have no responsibility for anything but the making of money." -Steve
Ballmer
Do not count me as a fan of Ballmer. I actually feel a responsibility to my
clients.
David Dickinson
news:48B3A9A0-347D-4D09...@microsoft.com...
> You are well aware that the default settings in AU would cause the
> computer
> to reboot therefore it's your own fault for not backing up your work prior
> to
> walking away from your computer.
You're making an unreasonable and unjustified assumption for which you have
no evidence. (Well, actually, you're making /two/ unreasonable and
unwarranted assumptions for which you have no evidence, but I'm willing to
bet that you can't figure out what either of them are.)
TaurArian
sense to backup their important data and/or save their work if it was that
important.
Is it unreasonble and unjustified to state that if rebooting at an
inappropriate time after updates was a problem for the user, then why didn't
the user adjust the AU settings? This would have been an ongoing problem
every month for the user therefore if it was an annoyance, would not the user
learn or ask how to adjust such settings.
You're right, I made an assumption of common sense.
End conversation.
David Dickinson
You're assuming that a certain situation existed at the time of the
incident. However, we don't know what project the user was working on. We
don't know what other tasks the computer was performing at the time of the
reboot. We don't know if the user was aware that he could adjust the
automatic update settings or if he understood that it might be necessary.
We don't know anything at all, except that we are demanding that an inexpert
user understand concepts that seem elementary to us but that are advanced
topics to 99.999% of the people in the world.
Remember that number: 99.999%. You have to design for them, the people who
will use computers but who don't know anything about them. If you don't
want them to be very unhappy with what you sell, then you'd better keep
their needs in mind. Instead of setting specifications for the kind of
users that you want, create better specifications for the computers that you
want to sell them.
(See? I told you that you were making unreasonable assumptions.)
"TaurArian" <taur...@gmailremove.com> wrote in message
news:E3819005-3FC0-413E...@microsoft.com...
TaurArian
"David Dickinson" wrote:
> .
>
David Dickinson
We don't even know how well the user can type. But obviously he had the
skills necessary to begin the project he was working on. Moreover, we
shouldn't expect him to know how to configure his computer anymore than we
expect him to know how to change the air filter on their cars.
QUIT BLAMING THE USER when a competent automatic updates design -- and an
application that autosaves -- would solve the problem.
And please quit grasping at straws. That car analogy is not only tiresomely
invalid, but it's too easy to use against you. Besides, straw-grasping not
a behavior that we normally associate with intelligence or honesty.
"TaurArian" <taur...@gmailremove.com> wrote in message
news:75995EF9-8C7F-478E...@microsoft.com...
TaurArian
the normal basic stuff like how to adjust seats, use indicators etc. How to
drive that particular motor vehicle. Each motor vehicle is different.
Adjusting the AU settings is no more difficult than adjusting the seat in
your motor vehicle to suit you needs.
Saving your work as you work is no more difficult than indicating changing
lanes.
If you value your work, you save it. If you know AU is going to reboot each
month, then you change settings. If you don't know how, you ask.
If all else fails RTFM.
End of story, end of thread.
Good night David.
David Dickinson wrote:
:: Puleeze.
::
::
David Dickinson
TaurArian said:
"Adjusting the AU settings is no more difficult than adjusting the seat in
your motor vehicle to suit you needs."
Again with the assumptions. /TO YOU/ it's no more difficult than that.
Aside from the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges (didn't they
require some kind of study of logic when you were in school?) with this
ridiculous comparison to cars, you're also comparing your knowledge with
that of average users who, I guarantee you, not only outnumber us a
million-fold, but who also would look at you with a blank stare if you used
the words "configure automatic updates". They would wonder why they were
wasting their time with you, a criticism you would richly deserve.
Think, man! Think! You're the 'leet. Stop expecting users to know what
you know. They shouldn't /have/ to know what you know! It's not their job
to know how to configure a computer. That's why we call them "users"
instead of "administrators".
"TaurArian" <taur...@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:O$FCNu2YK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
M
> Fact this is not new behavior.
I know.
> Fact if you want to control patches, go into the control panel, Windwos
> Update, choose download but do not install.
No shit.
> Fact Apple (which arguably has the potential to be a greater monopoly
> than Microsoft) also reboots.
Really? Fascinating. Apple would have to lower their prices considerably
to make your observation come true.
>
> Make the choice to turn off automatic updates and control your own
> patching. It's that simple.
Do you know to whom you are replying? Hint: it ain't the OP.
>
> Microsoft cares about their Enterprise customers that do pay.
They care about the money, I agree. Whether they care if you lose data
due to auto reboots, I beg to disagree.
M
Alias
"Friends don't let friends drive Windows". If you really felt a
responsibility to your clients, you would teach them how to use Linux
that never reboots unless you tell it to and updates rarely have a
reboot and, even then, you reboot at *your* pleasure, not the operating
system's.
Alias
Alias
> He chose it because Microsoft told him it was the best thing to do, not
> because he understood the potential problems -- as he should not be
> expected to do. He is, after all, a user, not a qualified administrator
> or OS designer. Microsoft's product should help users avoid these kinds
> of problems. Instead, their recommendation causes them.
>
> Blaming the user will not solve the problem, because more people than
> this one are affected by it. Expecting everyone to be an expert is
> unfair, short-sighted, and ignorant.
Quite true along with the false pop up notice that one can continue
working while updates are being installed. But what do you expect from
Microsoft? They only care about their bottom line. I mean, after all,
they did sell Vista, possibly the worst OS ever.
Alias
>
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23zdeW2v...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> *You* chose the "automatic" setting for Automatic Updates so you have
>> only yourself to blame!
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
>> www.banthecheck.com
>>
>>
Stefan Kanthak
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIPPED>
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
> <above is link to entire conversation>
>
>
> David Dickinson wrote:
>> He chose it because Microsoft told him it was the best thing to do,
>> not because he understood the potential problems -- as he should
>> not be expected to do. He is, after all, a user, not a qualified
>> administrator or OS designer. Microsoft's product should help
>> users avoid these kinds of problems. Instead, their recommendation
>> causes them.
>> Blaming the user will not solve the problem, because more people
>> than this one are affected by it. Expecting everyone to be an
>> expert is unfair, short-sighted, and ignorant.
>
> Maybe the problem is assuming due-diligence. If you are going to be using
> some tool to accomplish some task - you should not *assume* it will be setup
> in such a way that is optimal for your needs.
NO!
A tool should ALWAYS be setup in a way to properly support its users.
Unfortunately the Microsoft developers live in the U.S. where many
people just don't care to save energy and don't switch of their
computing equipment after use. So they deliberately choose 03:00 AM
to install the downloaded updates and reboot to enforce the timely
installation of the updates.
Stefan
Stefan Kanthak
"Susan Bradley" <sbra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Fact this is not new behavior.
> Fact if you want to control patches, go into the control panel, Windwos
> Update, choose download but do not install.
> Fact Apple (which arguably has the potential to be a greater monopoly
> than Microsoft) also reboots.
>
> Make the choice to turn off automatic updates and control your own
> patching. It's that simple.
No, that's BAD advice!
DONT TURN OFF automatic updates, just set this registry entry
[HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto Update]
"NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers"=dword:01
and optionally
[HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate]
"ElevateNonAdmins"=dword:01
> Microsoft cares about their Enterprise customers that do pay.
<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/328010/en-us> is not for us poor,
not paying mortals?
Stefan
Shenan Stanley
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
<above is link to entire conversation>
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Maybe the problem is assuming due-diligence. If you are going to
> be using some tool to accomplish some task - you should not
> *assume* it will be setup in such a way that is optimal for your
> needs.
<snipped>
Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> NO!
> A tool should ALWAYS be setup in a way to properly support its
> users.
>
> Unfortunately the Microsoft developers live in the U.S. where many
> people just don't care to save energy and don't switch of their
> computing equipment after use. So they deliberately choose 03:00 AM
> to install the downloaded updates and reboot to enforce the timely
> installation of the updates.
So you can have a tool that automatically knows the best setting for each
individual? Especially when that tool will be handed to everyone from the
least experience to the most experienced in it usage and all over the world,
every corner of it?
- Some people might need their system to run continuously to evaluate/gather
data.
- Some people might need their system off between certain hours of the day.
- Some people might not care either way.
How can you have a single setting that does that for someone?
You can't - so you leave the settings up to the individual. The end-user,
the one actually using the equipment, is the only one that can determine
their needs in a specific situation during a specific time.
Michael
news:uWKbc55Y...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
That's real good advice! Now you'll have users, who just learned what the
off/on button is used for, messing around in the registry. Then we'll have
Dave Dickinson crying that Microsoft uses this thing called a registry to
confound intelligent people and it should be outlawed and it's all part of a
global conspiracy to take over the world.
Susan Bradley
download and install them when YOU want them.
David Dickinson
news:OZX3287Y...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Stefan Kanthak" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:uWKbc55Y...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> DONT TURN OFF automatic updates, just set this registry entry
>>
>> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto
>> Update]
>> "NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers"=dword:01
>>
>> and optionally
>>
>> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate]
>> "ElevateNonAdmins"=dword:01
> That's real good advice! Now you'll have users, who just learned what the
> off/on button is used for, messing around in the registry. Then we'll
> have Dave Dickinson crying that Microsoft uses this thing called a
> registry to confound intelligent people and it should be outlawed and it's
> all part of a global conspiracy to take over the world.
Yah. Right. Don't be an idiot. I have never said that configuration
options should be removed. In fact, I think that more registry settings
should be configurable through the Windows UI, given that sufficiently
frightening warnings are given to keep users away from them. But are you
trying to say that amateurs and users /shouldn't/ stay out of the registry?
Your unintelligent response begs the question.
Since you obviously missed my point, I'll repeat it (for the umpteenth
time): Quit blaming the user for following Microsoft's recommendations and
for not being an expert at configuring their operating system. If you do
your job right as an OS designer or administrator then you don't have to
trust the users or hope that they'll become experts.
David Dickinson
news:hdgo9d$vhh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Friends don't let friends drive Windows". If you really felt a
> responsibility to your clients, you would teach them how to use Linux that
> never reboots unless you tell it to and updates rarely have a reboot and,
> even then, you reboot at *your* pleasure, not the operating system's.
Another mouthpiece from the fringe heard from. Whoop-dee-friggin'-doo.
Michael
news:uArQCy8Y...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Michael" <mds...@gropumail.com> wrote in message
> news:OZX3287Y...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> "Stefan Kanthak" <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>> news:uWKbc55Y...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> ...
>>> DONT TURN OFF automatic updates, just set this registry entry
>>>
>>> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto
>>> Update]
>>> "NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers"=dword:01
>>>
>>> and optionally
>>>
>>> [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate]
>>> "ElevateNonAdmins"=dword:01
> ...
>> That's real good advice! Now you'll have users, who just learned what
>> the off/on button is used for, messing around in the registry. Then
>> we'll have Dave Dickinson crying that Microsoft uses this thing called a
>> registry to confound intelligent people and it should be outlawed and
>> it's all part of a global conspiracy to take over the world.
>
> Yah. Right. Don't be an idiot. I have never said that configuration
> options should be removed. In fact, I think that more registry settings
> should be configurable through the Windows UI, given that sufficiently
> frightening warnings are given to keep users away from them. But are you
> trying to say that amateurs and users /shouldn't/ stay out of the
> registry? Your unintelligent response begs the question.
I was about to instruct you in the meaning of the word "sarcasm", but after
re-reading what I wrote, I changed my mind. It would be beneficial to the
world if more computer illiterate people fooled around in the registry.
That would tone down the noise in here considerably. Have you read some of
the posts in the Microsoft newsgroups? I've seen tons of posts from people
complaining "My internet don't work!!!" These people should educate
themselves before buying a computer, or subscribe to WebTV and sell their
computer to someone who has a clue.
> Since you obviously missed my point, I'll repeat it (for the umpteenth
> time): Quit blaming the user for following Microsoft's recommendations and
> for not being an expert at configuring their operating system. If you do
> your job right as an OS designer or administrator then you don't have to
> trust the users or hope that they'll become experts.
You're living in a fantasy world. The users buying today find it difficult
to set a home thermostat. You give them too much credit. I'd like to know
when Microsoft or any software manufacturer has become synonymous with
pre-school teaching? Any normal, semi-intelligent person, buying their
first computer, would also buy a copy of Windows for Idiots, so as to
familiarize themselves with the basics. I posted a reply to you yesterday,
but it was probably squashed do to certain terms I used. In that reply I
asked you if it would make sense for a car dealership to sell a car to
someone who has never driven before. Any normal person would take driving
lessons or at least have a parent/friend/whatever take them driving so they
can familiarize themselves with a car. I have yet to see or hear of any
auto manufacturers offering classes to teach how to put a key in the
ignition. I feel the same principle applies here.
Stefan Kanthak
> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> "Susan Bradley" <sbra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Make the choice to turn off automatic updates and control your own
>>> patching. It's that simple.
>>
>> No, that's BAD advice!
>> DONT TURN OFF automatic updates, just set this registry entry
[...]
> I'm not saying turn off auto updates perse I'm saying set them to
> download and install them when YOU want them.
Read it again!
Stefan
Stefan Kanthak
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> Maybe the problem is assuming due-diligence. If you are going to
>> be using some tool to accomplish some task - you should not
>> *assume* it will be setup in such a way that is optimal for your
>> needs.
> <snipped>
>
> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> NO!
>> A tool should ALWAYS be setup in a way to properly support its
>> users.
[...]
> So you can have a tool that automatically knows the best setting for each
> individual? Especially when that tool will be handed to everyone from the
> least experience to the most experienced in it usage and all over the world,
> every corner of it?
The default setting "Install silently and reboot without prompt" can
NEVER be an appropriate setting: a reboot without prior consent MUST
NEVER happen during normal operation.
Stefan
David Dickinson
> "David Dickinson" <eveni...@die-spammer-die-mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:uArQCy8Y...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> options should be removed. In fact, I think that more registry settings
>> should be configurable through the Windows UI, given that sufficiently
>> frightening warnings are given to keep users away from them. But are you
>> trying to say that amateurs and users /shouldn't/ stay out of the
>> registry? Your unintelligent response begs the question.
>
> I was about to instruct you in the meaning of the word "sarcasm", but
> after re-reading what I wrote, I changed my mind. It would be beneficial
> to the world if more computer illiterate people fooled around in the
> registry. That would tone down the noise in here considerably. Have you
> read some of the posts in the Microsoft newsgroups? I've seen tons of
> posts from people complaining "My internet don't work!!!" These people
> should educate themselves before buying a computer, or subscribe to WebTV
> and sell their computer to someone who has a clue.
Therefore confirming my evaluation of you. You want everyone else to change
in order to make you happy. (How's that working out for you, by the way?)
Instead of complaining about users, you could try to help them because, in
case you haven't noticed, they are not going to change. There are many more
of them than there are of us. But that would mean you'd have to make some
effort, doesn't it?
>> Since you obviously missed my point, I'll repeat it (for the umpteenth
>> time): Quit blaming the user for following Microsoft's recommendations
>> and for not being an expert at configuring their operating system. If
>> you do your job right as an OS designer or administrator then you don't
>> have to trust the users or hope that they'll become experts.
>
> You're living in a fantasy world. The users buying today find it
> difficult to set a home thermostat. You give them too much credit. I'd
> like to know when Microsoft or any software manufacturer has become
> synonymous with pre-school teaching? Any normal, semi-intelligent person,
> buying their first computer, would also buy a copy of Windows for Idiots,
> so as to familiarize themselves with the basics.
Or maybe they want to buy products that are smart enough so that they don't
have to know anything more about them that how to make them do what they
want them to do. What is wrong with that? The time has long past when
people could be experts in a variety of topics. There is just too much to
know. We rely, instead, on experts in very narrow fields, and a few
generalists who can get them to work together.
Our job is to be the experts about computers who help non-experts to use
them to accomplish tasks for the fields in which they are expert -- or just
to help them entertain themselves. There is nothing wrong with users.
There is, however, something terribly wrong with a profession, such as ours,
when its members expect everyone else to know what they know.
Quit blaming the users for your dissatisfaction and examine your own
responsibility for the problem. What can you do to help? Are you of any
benefit to others, or is it your intent simply to complain about everyone
else?
David Dickinson
news:e97IvVxY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> You did not answer the question - you really thought their post was an
> "appropriate criticism"?
Absolutely. Yes. It adequately conveyed the user's frustration with a
particular issue. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
...
> "It's not expecting everyone to be an 'expert' - but to understand their
> own
> needs/wants and figure out what they need to do to make sure those
> needs/wants are met."
In fact, you are requiring people to know things that they shouldn't have to
know. Why should users be required to know how to configure automatic
updates? The first purpose of any operating system must be to prevent data
loss. The automatic restart feature, when left to the hands of inexpert
users (who compose 99.999% of the world) actually /causes/ data loss. This
is not a difficult problem to understand and to design an OS to prevent.
Susan Bradley
system in a fragile unprotected/unknown state.
I am reading. I am stating that either you patch and reboot, or you set
it to download and install when you want them to install.
Please do not advocate installing updates and then not rebooting.
Michael
With the limited knowledge I have I do try to help the posters who are
sincere. I only sound off on posters like Middle Finger Salute, who, most
likely, create their own problems, then post here blaming everything but the
kitchen sink, yet don't have the common sense of a housefly.
>>> Since you obviously missed my point, I'll repeat it (for the umpteenth
>>> time): Quit blaming the user for following Microsoft's recommendations
>>> and for not being an expert at configuring their operating system. If
>>> you do your job right as an OS designer or administrator then you don't
>>> have to trust the users or hope that they'll become experts.
>>
>> You're living in a fantasy world. The users buying today find it
>> difficult to set a home thermostat. You give them too much credit. I'd
>> like to know when Microsoft or any software manufacturer has become
>> synonymous with pre-school teaching? Any normal, semi-intelligent
>> person, buying their first computer, would also buy a copy of Windows for
>> Idiots, so as to familiarize themselves with the basics.
>
> Or maybe they want to buy products that are smart enough so that they
> don't have to know anything more about them that how to make them do what
> they want them to do. What is wrong with that? The time has long past
> when people could be experts in a variety of topics. There is just too
> much to know. We rely, instead, on experts in very narrow fields, and a
> few generalists who can get them to work together.
Sorry, David. I'm raised old school. I don't get involved or purchase
anything unless I at least do the minimum research first. I rely on myself,
first, and only after I exhaust the resources I know, do I contact a
so-called expert, meaning if I install an update and after the reboot my
screen resolution has changed, I first try to reset the resolution myself.
Not immediately post to a newsgroup crying Microsoft stole and/or ruined my
widdle biddy icons. C'mon! You sound reasonably intelligent. Use some
common sense.
> Our job is to be the experts about computers who help non-experts to use
> them to accomplish tasks for the fields in which they are expert -- or
> just to help them entertain themselves. There is nothing wrong with
> users. There is, however, something terribly wrong with a profession, such
> as ours, when its members expect everyone else to know what they know.
I'm far from being an expert. Everything I've learned about computers,
hardware and software, I've learned by reading, doing, and when necessary,
asking intelligent questions.
> Quit blaming the users for your dissatisfaction and examine your own
> responsibility for the problem. What can you do to help? Are you of any
> benefit to others, or is it your intent simply to complain about everyone
> else?
No one here is responsible for babysitting some spoiled brat who just got a
brand new laptop and went porn searching without any protection. It's a
parents job to teach common sense, not a bunch of characters on an LCD. Why
do you consider it a travesty for a user to open a help file and READ?
Shenan Stanley
> The default setting "Install silently and reboot without prompt" can
> NEVER be an appropriate setting: a reboot without prior consent MUST
> NEVER happen during normal operation.
Please define "normal operation" for every situation...
Shenan Stanley
So be it - to each their own.
*shrug*
We disagree, but not as much as you think..
I like to believe people want to learn to do things well. Takes some effort
to do some things in life.
I feel you are defining what people should know. I don't like to limit
people's abilities that way.
I am saying they could either learn what they need to know to do whatever it
is they want in the best way possible or live with their ignorance and the
consequences thereof - just like it always has been - always will be in some
way. I'm not forcing anything on anyone. They are welcome to live in
ignorance and blame others, or not. *grin*
This 'tunnel vision' you seem to be imposing on people - well - this setting
in this case happens to be part of the wall of the tunnel. ;-)
![Harry Johnston [MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWpkBAPqvc839nzAtvH7xG03OwcxExyoyKpBgg3G7rKJeLEHQ=s40-c)
Harry Johnston [MVP]
David Dickinson wrote [in two separate posts]:
> The automatic restart feature, when coupled with Microsoft's
> recommendation to use it, is a design flaw.
Agreed! I've *never* understood this decision.
On my new Windows 7 install I noticed that not only were you encouraged to allow
it to set automatic updating as the default, but if you don't you get a warning
message from the taskbar - and the only way to turn this off is to configure the
security centre (or whatever it's called) to not monitor Windows Update *at
all*. Not good usability.
On the other hand ...
> Instead, we have to design smarter operating systems and
> applications, because to not do so would be irresponsible on our part.
> We CAN design smarter operating systems. We CAN allow users to have
> shallow learning requirements.
Unfortunately, history suggests that smarter operating systems don't sell.
> But what we cannot do is change the world.
... or Microsoft.
Harry.
M
You deserve Windows then, if all you can come up with is this.
Alias
David Dickinson
...
> I like to believe people want to learn to do things well. Takes some
> effort to do some things in life.
Unfortunately, there isn't time to learn everything that we might like to
know. The last person who could possess all of human knowledge was Benjamin
Franklin. Nowadays, we can only hope to possess a small fraction of
everything there is to know. If everybody tried to learn how to configure
automatic updates, millions of man-hours would be wasted because it simply
is not necessary -- and /should not/ be necessary -- for everyone (or for
even a sizeable fraction of everyone) to know how to do it.
> I feel you are defining what people should know. I don't like to limit
> people's abilities that way.
I'm describing what it is /possible/ for people to know. You simply aren't
looking at the big picture.
> I am saying they could either learn what they need to know to do...
You are saying that users in general need to know how to configure automatic
updates. If that is true, then we are not nearly as advanced in our
computer technology as we think we are.
Either that, or we're just lazy.
I tend to think that laziness is our biggest problem. Even a patch for XP
which prevented the problem that the original poster experienced is not that
big a deal, especially when compared to the fact that an operating system
"feature" actually causes data loss.
Fortunately, it is NOT true that general users must be required to learn to
configure such details of their operating systems. What is true is that
this design flaw should be fixed, and it can be fixed if the powers that be
have the will to do it.
David Dickinson
"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <ha...@scms.waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:ertEr1%23YKH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> David Dickinson wrote [in two separate posts]:
> > Instead, we have to design smarter operating systems and
> > applications, because to not do so would be irresponsible on our part.
> > We CAN design smarter operating systems. We CAN allow users to have
> > shallow learning requirements.
>
> Unfortunately, history suggests that smarter operating systems don't sell.
Hopefully, that is simply a marketing problem. Linux has never been
marketed sufficiently, and Apple, following IBM's route of attempting to
have complete control over the world, simply can't sell that kind of
product. People accepted PCs because it's an open hardware standard that
can run lots of different operating systems. Microsoft simply offered the
best /marketed/ operating system for that platform. And, at the time
Windows 3.0 came out, it was the best GUI for that platform. After that,
nobody else had a chance.
> > But what we cannot do is change the world.
>
> ... or Microsoft.
I don't think it's Microsoft, Inc., that we have to worry about. It's the
handful of people who run it who are the problem. Attitudes such as
Ballmer's "I have no responsibility for anything but the making of money"
show clearly the danger of relying them. Without a conscience at the top,
the corporation ends up producing disasters like Vista, or hobbled, top-down
designs like Vista SP3 (often known as "Windows 7").
(See my list of 30 Windows 7 Annoyances here:
http://windows7forums.com/windows-7-discussion/25365-my-list-30-windows-7-annoyances.html )
David
David Dickinson
> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> The default setting "Install silently and reboot without prompt" can
>> NEVER be an appropriate setting: a reboot without prior consent MUST
>> NEVER happen during normal operation.
>
> Please define "normal operation" for every situation...
How about "any computer with which humans interact". Or has this discussion
gotten too far above your head?
Shenan Stanley
David Dickinson wrote:
> Unfortunately, there isn't time to learn everything that we might
> like to know. The last person who could possess all of human
> knowledge was Benjamin Franklin. Nowadays, we can only hope to
> possess a small fraction of everything there is to know. If
> everybody tried to learn how to configure automatic updates,
> millions of man-hours would be wasted because it simply is not
> necessary -- and /should not/ be necessary -- for everyone (or for
> even a sizeable fraction of everyone) to know how to do it.
> simply aren't looking at the big picture.
>
> automatic updates. If that is true, then we are not nearly as
> advanced in our computer technology as we think we are.
>
> Either that, or we're just lazy.
>
> I tend to think that laziness is our biggest problem. Even a patch
> for XP which prevented the problem that the original poster
> experienced is not that big a deal, especially when compared to the
> fact that an operating system "feature" actually causes data loss.
>
> Fortunately, it is NOT true that general users must be required to
> learn to configure such details of their operating systems. What
> is true is that this design flaw should be fixed, and it can be
> fixed if the powers that be have the will to do it.
I am saying they _could_ learn - or they could live in ignorance. I'm
allowing them to choose. They can send in suggestions and try to make a
change in the update system - good - go for it. Or they could learn to
click the mouse a few extra times or import a registry file or something.
I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm just saying they *COULD* learn.
You kept throwing out that I believed they should become an expert (never
said that, never even implied it) - I don't think configuing Windows Updates
will make anyone much of an expert on anything. No more than learning to
automate the save process in MS Word/MS Excel/MS Powerpoint/OpenOffice
applications/WordPerfect/etc would make them an expert in that program - but
might save them just as much trouble as this little configuration change
does. Should that setting be automatically set too? Maybe - but I say
leave that to the person while you might say that should be the default.
There is no one way to do anything, no best way for everyone. What you may
think *is* the way things should be might not be the best way for someone
else. What you may like, others may not. What may thrill you may scare
someone else. What you may be unwilling to do, others may do without a
second thought.
You don't get everything you want in this life - so some things you either
learn to do yourself (even if it is 'simple' or 'difficult' or done by
changing completely to something else) or you learn to live with what will
happen if you don't do it.
Maybe it will change where it won't be automatic - then I think there will
be people complaining that their system never seems to be updated and
because of that they got infested with something. Or that it notified them
and they are tired of that. Or that it didn't play a sound letting them
know when they needed to update. Or that it should have been in big red
letters. Or that it should have cut off Internet access until they decided
to allow it to patch itself (or that it shouldn't have cut off Internet
access until it was allowed to patch itself.) Or that it shouldn't need
updates at all. (Actually - I bet there are already people who have said
something similar to all of those. hah) There will almost always be two
sides to everything (or more.) If we all agreed - there would be one OS,
one computer system, it would work perfectly and life would be
extraordinarily... ordinary. *grin*
Preventing Data Loss is not the main function of an OS for many people -
allowing them to use a computer as a means-to-an-end is the purpose for many
people, IMHO. That's why all OSes have gotten more bloated over time with
pictures and the use of a mouse with multiple buttons and 2+ different ways
to do almost anything on your 24+" monitor with your printer/scanner/fax
attached and the ability to control some things with guestures and other
things by voice commands and you can even use peddles for some things *and*
the command line still sitting there waiting to be used. It may be the
system administrator's job in an enterprise environment to ensure data is
not lost - but for the standard home user - their thought process is likely
usually much simpler... "How can this box make this process
easier/better/faster for me?" Each person defines what the
computer/OS/applications that run on it means to them.
Neither of us can make the decision on what is best for everyone who might
use a computer with Windows installed on it... That would be - as I keep
saying - the choice of the end-user.
And it is my right to think that those who choose not to learn something are
being lazy and thus, remaining ignorant of something... *smile* It is your
right to think that Microsoft should change the setting so that the choice
changes, they would then have to turn it on full automatic ... Would those
that want to change the new default setting be ignorant if they did not
bother to learn how to change it?
Although when I last installed - it was a choice during the first boot -
even on the first boot of a pre-installed OEM computer - whether to turn on
the fully automatic updates or not - a question. Yes - it
suggested/recommended - but I have been asked my opinion by other people
more than once when people got a new computer what they should answer there.
I usually tell them to change the settings to Notify but don't
download/install. Just like I think you would want the default to be and
Microsoft to recommend. However - sometimes when I explain the options and
even throw in, "Now it can reboot anytime it wants if you choose the fully
automatic option", some people say, "Yeah - but at least I know it is
patched and probably more secure than it would be without that."
*shrug*
This has become ridiculous.
You like chocolate or vanilla more?
Dark or light beer?
Red or white wine?
Hot or cold weather?
Same opinion-like questions, different subjects. ;-)
I thank you for the discussion. I did get to see things from another side -
and that's what I like to do - learn, test my opinions, see if they hold up
for me. Otherwise - the world is like I mentioned above... Extraordinarily
Ordinary... It was enjoyable - but I have other things to go about, other
questions to answer (ones with actual answers in some cases even. *grin*)
Shenan Stanley
> The default setting "Install silently and reboot without prompt"
> can NEVER be an appropriate setting: a reboot without prior
> consent MUST NEVER happen during normal operation.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Please define "normal operation" for every situation...
David Dickinson wrote:
> How about "any computer with which humans interact". Or has this
> discussion gotten too far above your head?
Wow - Okay - I gave you credit in my mind for having an actual discussion.
I even thanked you elsewhere in this conversation for the discussion. Yet -
like many people who decide they can no longer 'discuss' something or if
they just tire of it - instead of saying, "I'm done" - you just get snotty
and jump in for a personal attack. They stop trying to understand the other
sides point of view and decide that if they cannot prove their side, then
they will end it anyway they can.
Nice.
To explain my question further (to Stefan) - how can you precisely define a
single "normal operation" for a computer or its user?
So the C&C machine operators use the computer in the same way as the person
who puts events on a calendar for their boss or the web page designer or the
photographer or the people who put together statistics for undergraduate
enrollment at a college or the 3d-video animator or the gamer or the game
creators or the graphic artist or the people studying weather patterns or
the architects or the engineers or the musicians...? How about those who
run computer labs that shoud be kept updated but available for users almost
24 hours a day/7 days a week? Those who manage kiosks in public areas for
web surfing?
If the word "never" is used (as it was) - then surely there is an "always"
for the "normal operation" that defines the 'never' mentioned...
David Dickinson
> I am saying they _could_ learn - or they could live in ignorance.
You're repeating yourself and, what's worse, you're not following your ideas
to their logical conclusions, so it looks like I'll have to repeat myself
again, too, although this will be the last time: If someone took the time
to study the details about how to configure their computer and to learn
enough to understand why they would need to ignore Microsoft's
recommendation and to apply a custom configuration then they would spend
many hours doing so. Therefore, it is NOT possible for all users -- or even
a large number of them -- to learn what you would require them to learn.
You have to think about the costs and consequences of your ideas, and you
have failed to do that. Such short-sighted thinking in the design of
Windows' automatic update mechanism is what caused this user's data loss.
Shenan Stanley
> Shenan Stanley wrote in message
*sigh*
You only quote part of what I say. Convenient for your point.
Repeating is what one does when they believe they have a valid point. It's
unlikely to change if there is no reason to change it.
However, some things are not worth it - arguing over opinions is one of
them. That's al this is - so - enjoy your opinion/life, I'll enjoy mine and
others may enjoy theirs without this continuing. I will no longer respond
to your posts in this conversation.
I thank you again (as I did before you snipped it out) for your point of
view and your discussion in the matter.
Anyone interested?
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
There's the entire conversation...
Alias
To configure Auto Updates isn't exactly rocket science and even you
could figure it out for yourself if you tried.
Alias
Stefan Kanthak
> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> "Susan Bradley" <sbra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>>>> "Susan Bradley" <sbra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Make the choice to turn off automatic updates and control your own
>>>>> patching. It's that simple.
>>>> No, that's BAD advice!
>>>> DONT TURN OFF automatic updates, just set this registry entry
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I'm not saying turn off auto updates perse I'm saying set them to
>>> download and install them when YOU want them.
>>
>> Read it again!
>>
>> Stefan
>>
> You do not want to install updates and then not reboot. This leaves the
> system in a fragile unprotected/unknown state.
You also dont want to have your PC reboot without notice!
> I am reading. I am stating that either you patch and reboot, or you set
> it to download and install when you want them to install.
Tertium datur: with the given registry settings updates are installed
during shutdown.
> Please do not advocate installing updates and then not rebooting.
I did not.
Please do not advocate to turn off automatic updates... People tend to
forget to patch manually then.
Stefan
Stefan Kanthak
> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> The default setting "Install silently and reboot without prompt"
>> can NEVER be an appropriate setting: a reboot without prior
>> consent MUST NEVER happen during normal operation.
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> Please define "normal operation" for every situation...
>
> David Dickinson wrote:
>> How about "any computer with which humans interact". Or has this
>> discussion gotten too far above your head?
[...]
> To explain my question further (to Stefan) - how can you precisely define a
> single "normal operation" for a computer or its user?
Running. Doing the tasks it was setup/bought for.
A reboot is a disruption of normal operation. And vice versa.
> So the C&C machine operators use the computer in the same way as the person
C&C machines and so forth have the computer as an embedded component.
The engineers who integrate these computers into the C&C machine etc.
have to deal with the proper configuration of the OS and tell the
customer who uses these machines how to maintain the embedded computer.
You clearly dont want to have Windows reboot at 03:00 AM when the C&C
machine does its night shift.
> who puts events on a calendar for their boss or the web page designer or the
> photographer or the people who put together statistics for undergraduate
> enrollment at a college or the 3d-video animator or the gamer or the game
> creators or the graphic artist or the people studying weather patterns or
> the architects or the engineers or the musicians...?
All these (the vast majority) use their computer interactive, so a sudden
reboot does harm!
> How about those who
> run computer labs that shoud be kept updated but available for users almost
> 24 hours a day/7 days a week?
Why should these computers reboot at 03:00 AM and interrupt their users?
> Those who manage kiosks in public areas for web surfing?
The three cases you picked are a minority, and the people who administer
these systems need to have the skills to setup computers for their resp.
tasks. Properly.
> If the word "never" is used (as it was) - then surely there is an "always"
> for the "normal operation" that defines the 'never' mentioned...
"Normal operation" is "how the typical end-user with an out-of-box setup
will use it". AFAIK the majority of Windows systems is used at home, by
Joe Average and Jane Doe.
Stefan
Bullwinkle's news
"David Dickinson" <eveni...@die-spammer-die-mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OgylS#AZKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
It's been an interesting discussion. You are bot right up to a point.
Most of us users, and I am one with no special training in OS have learned
the hard way. We all make mistakes but some of us learn not to make the same
mistake twice.
Probably Middle finger will have learned not to repeat his error and adjust
his thinking. It does no good to call any of us stupid (although no one said
it but some here implied it.)
So we learn and adjust.
As I said it was a nice discussion and no one blew his/her cool.
Best regards to you all,
Bullwinkle
>
Bullwinkle's news
You spend all your time in this thread saying that almost all users/ops are
idiots.
That's just not true.
Regards,
Bullwinkle
"David Dickinson" <eveni...@die-spammer-die-mvps.org> wrote in message
news:#OloHR3Y...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> TaurArian said:
> "Adjusting the AU settings is no more difficult than adjusting the seat in
> your motor vehicle to suit you needs."
>
> Again with the assumptions. /TO YOU/ it's no more difficult than that.
> Aside from the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges (didn't they
> require some kind of study of logic when you were in school?) with this
> ridiculous comparison to cars, you're also comparing your knowledge with
> that of average users who, I guarantee you, not only outnumber us a
> million-fold, but who also would look at you with a blank stare if you
> used the words "configure automatic updates". They would wonder why they
> were wasting their time with you, a criticism you would richly deserve.
>
> Think, man! Think! You're the 'leet. Stop expecting users to know what
> you know. They shouldn't /have/ to know what you know! It's not their
> job to know how to configure a computer. That's why we call them "users"
> instead of "administrators".
>
> "TaurArian" <taur...@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:O$FCNu2YK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I didn't say a person needed to learn the mechanics of a motor vehicle,
>>just the normal basic stuff like how to adjust seats, use indicators etc.
>>How to drive that particular motor vehicle. Each motor vehicle is
>>different.
>>
>> Adjusting the AU settings is no more difficult than adjusting the seat in
>> your motor vehicle to suit you needs.
>> Saving your work as you work is no more difficult than indicating
>> changing lanes.
>>
>> If you value your work, you save it. If you know AU is going to reboot
>> each month, then you change settings. If you don't know how, you ask.
>>
>> If all else fails RTFM.
>>
>> End of story, end of thread.
>>
>> Good night David.
>>
>>
>> David Dickinson wrote:
>> :: Puleeze.
>> ::
>> :: We don't even know how well the user can type. But obviously he had
>> :: the skills necessary to begin the project he was working on.
>> :: Moreover, we shouldn't expect him to know how to configure his
>> :: computer anymore than we expect him to know how to change the air
>> :: filter on their cars.
>> ::
>> :: QUIT BLAMING THE USER when a competent automatic updates design --
>> :: and an application that autosaves -- would solve the problem.
>> ::
>> :: And please quit grasping at straws. That car analogy is not only
>> :: tiresomely invalid, but it's too easy to use against you. Besides,
>> :: straw-grasping not a behavior that we normally associate with
>> :: intelligence or honesty.
>> ::
>> ::
>>
>>
>
David Dickinson
news:hdp78t$sla$3...@aioe.org...
> You're again assuming that no one learns anything from their mistakes.
> You spend all your time in this thread saying that almost all users/ops
> are idiots.
>
> That's just not true.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bullwinkle
You have completely misread what I said. I have not even implied that users
are idiots, and I would not do that. What I have said is that it is
unreasonable to expect users to know that they should not follow Microsoft's
recommendation to allow automatic updates. In what way is that calling them
idiots?
It would be like a brain surgeon calling me an idiot because I don't know
how to remove a brain tumor from someone's skull. I don't have to know how
to do that. I don't want to spend the time it would take to learn how to do
that. I would rather rely on an expert to do it because I've found a
completely different field in which I want to be an expert, and I want
people to rely on me for my expertise in that field. I don't consider them
idiots for doing so. I consider them smart.
A properly designed operating system doesn't require you to learn "the hard
way". It protects your data, is easy for you to use, and tells you when you
need expert help. (After that, if you fail to heed the warning, that's on
you.)
You are wrong that I consider users to be idiots. They simply know things
that I don't know, as I know things that they don't know, and they use
their computers to accomplish their tasks, which is as it should be. My job
is to make sure that they can do their jobs, which I don't know how to do.
David
Shenan Stanley
> This is a middle finger salute for the folks at Microsoft. I
> walked away from my computer for about 30 minutes. When I came
> back, the computer had rebooted because of an automatic update. I
> lost about two hours of work.
For those who have contributed to this discussion and have decided
what would/would not be the best setting for everyone, you may want
to review this conversation I just came across...
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_thread/thread/611c2ea2354c069a/
And to make sure you don't miss any of this conversation:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
As I said elsewhere - there is no single proper/covers everyone answer.
;-)
David Dickinson
> For those who have contributed to this discussion and have decided
> what would/would not be the best setting for everyone, you may want
> to review this conversation I just came across...
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_thread/thread/611c2ea2354c069a/
>
> And to make sure you don't miss any of this conversation:
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate/browse_frm/thread/753a814d91d89d82/
>
> As I said elsewhere - there is no single proper/covers everyone answer.
So sayeth the person who is wrong.