Offline files nightmare
-
@scottalanmiller Again, I agree. We are in the lesser of two evils argument, as there is no way I can budget the cost to switch away from windows. At this point I don't want to. Maybe in a couple years after the newer method of all or nothing updating has screwed me.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller Again, I agree. We are in the lesser of two evils argument, as there is no way I can budget the cost to switch away from windows. At this point I don't want to. Maybe in a couple years after the newer method of all or nothing updating has screwed me.
You don't want to switch, yet you distrust the vendor on which you depend 100% for patching.
The method here is the same as everyone else, Windows is just catching up with the rest of the world. Constant rolling updates are generally considered to be the way forward. NO real escaping that any more.
-
Patches aren't done in a vacuum so it is what it is. We will have to see how MS handles it. The O365 clients updating has mostly been OK since 2013. Windows 10 has been hit and miss.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
Patches aren't done in a vacuum so it is what it is. We will have to see how MS handles it. The O365 clients updating has mostly been OK since 2013. Windows 10 has been hit and miss.
I just don't see them seeing it as the serious business tool that it used to be.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller Again, I agree. We are in the lesser of two evils argument, as there is no way I can budget the cost to switch away from windows. At this point I don't want to. Maybe in a couple years after the newer method of all or nothing updating has screwed me.
You don't want to switch, yet you distrust the vendor on which you depend 100% for patching.
The method here is the same as everyone else, Windows is just catching up with the rest of the world. Constant rolling updates are generally considered to be the way forward. NO real escaping that any more.
I also have multi-layered security and AV to help with this. Just because there is a patch, doesn't mean there isn't another flaw somewhere else that hasn't been discovered.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller Again, I agree. We are in the lesser of two evils argument, as there is no way I can budget the cost to switch away from windows. At this point I don't want to. Maybe in a couple years after the newer method of all or nothing updating has screwed me.
You don't want to switch, yet you distrust the vendor on which you depend 100% for patching.
The method here is the same as everyone else, Windows is just catching up with the rest of the world. Constant rolling updates are generally considered to be the way forward. NO real escaping that any more.
I also have multi-layered security and AV to help with this. Just because there is a patch, doesn't mean there isn't another flaw somewhere else that hasn't been discovered.
That's fine, but that's a red herring. That one vulnerability is not yet patched has nothing to do with another being addressed. It's not "perfect or useless". And vulnerabilities are most vulnerable hours after the release of a patch.
-
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
Yes, I'm not defending that they are doing a good job. Only that they are doing the job at the level that they are and using them requires an acceptance of that. My solution was to stop using Windows
-
@scottalanmiller I guess that makes sense. All the jerks out there are jumping in after there has been a known exploit trying to get theirs before the system is patched.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
Yes, I'm not defending that they are doing a good job. Only that they are doing the job at the level that they are and using them requires an acceptance of that. My solution was to stop using Windows
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have Windows.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I guess that makes sense. All the jerks out there are jumping in after there has been a known exploit trying to get theirs before the system is patched.
Yes, the patching process alerts them to the vulnerability being there. It's why the first hours are calm then a spike in risk.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
Yes, I'm not defending that they are doing a good job. Only that they are doing the job at the level that they are and using them requires an acceptance of that. My solution was to stop using Windows
In
a perfectmy world, we wouldn't have Windows.FTFY
-
@scottalanmiller LOL - The rest of us are still playing catch-up.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
Patches aren't done in a vacuum so it is what it is. We will have to see how MS handles it. The O365 clients updating has mostly been OK since 2013. Windows 10 has been hit and miss.
I just don't see them seeing it as the serious business tool that it used to be.
Holy cow - crazy thought - What if MS is doing this on purpose to drive people away from Windows on the desktop? If they consider Windows on the desktop as a money loss, or even if it's just a money break even, it's probably not worth keeping around. Nadella has been pushing like mad to have everything in the cloud.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
I have a problem with things like this.
I'm thinking to the problems that I can recall and only one, that Skype stopped working when the video went to a higher resolution broadcast, that MS did on purpose (they removed support for a specific specification) not realizing what it would break.
The other problems, like BSOD when you plug in a Kindle White, weren't on purpose - well, at least we don't know why it happens, I'm not even sure that's fixed yet.
There are so many configurations that a Windows desktop machine can be in, it's not possible for MS to test every combination.
All that said, yes, there have been more problems that seems like there should be.
-
@Dashrender I have a problem with it too. There was a time when a bad patch Tuesday was news. Now it seems that we have moved toward the opposite of that. I never said they were purposely sabotaging patches or compatibility.
-
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller My users have Windows 7, so that isn't really an issue. I installed AU and had to revert on my laptop for awhile.
what issue did you have that you had to revert?
I have rolled 1607 out to 1/2 dozen machines so far. None of my machines have had any issues.
That said, at a different customer of mine, every machine has a problem with random PDF files. At seemingly random times when you print a PDF it will have black bars on it.
There is/was an active thread on Adobe about this problem.
-
@Dashrender said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
I have a problem with things like this.
I'm thinking to the problems that I can recall and only one, that Skype stopped working when the video went to a higher resolution broadcast, that MS did on purpose (they removed support for a specific specification) not realizing what it would break.
The other problems, like BSOD when you plug in a Kindle White, weren't on purpose - well, at least we don't know why it happens, I'm not even sure that's fixed yet.
There are so many configurations that a Windows desktop machine can be in, it's not possible for MS to test every combination.
All that said, yes, there have been more problems that seems like there should be.
Who said "on purpose?"
-
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@Dashrender said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
I have a problem with things like this.
I'm thinking to the problems that I can recall and only one, that Skype stopped working when the video went to a higher resolution broadcast, that MS did on purpose (they removed support for a specific specification) not realizing what it would break.
The other problems, like BSOD when you plug in a Kindle White, weren't on purpose - well, at least we don't know why it happens, I'm not even sure that's fixed yet.
There are so many configurations that a Windows desktop machine can be in, it's not possible for MS to test every combination.
All that said, yes, there have been more problems that seems like there should be.
Who said "on purpose?"
It's implied - OH MS you should have done a better job at testing to make sure these problems didn't happen. I know I'm being an MS apologist, but it's just not practical for MS to test very possible setup a home user could have, the countless hardware configurations, etc.
The implication I'm hearing is that MS could have done a better job. I really wonder if that's true?
-
@Dashrender said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller said in Offline files nightmare:
@Dashrender said in Offline files nightmare:
@wrx7m said in Offline files nightmare:
@scottalanmiller I think you are right. If they did see it as a serious business tool, they would adjust their focus and resources to make sure that the quality of initial release and subsequent patches is as close to perfect as it can be. Now, it seems it is best guess. Does it patch the vulnerability? Yes? OK release it. Whoops, it broke something else. Hmmm...
I have a problem with things like this.
I'm thinking to the problems that I can recall and only one, that Skype stopped working when the video went to a higher resolution broadcast, that MS did on purpose (they removed support for a specific specification) not realizing what it would break.
The other problems, like BSOD when you plug in a Kindle White, weren't on purpose - well, at least we don't know why it happens, I'm not even sure that's fixed yet.
There are so many configurations that a Windows desktop machine can be in, it's not possible for MS to test every combination.
All that said, yes, there have been more problems that seems like there should be.
Who said "on purpose?"
It's implied - OH MS you should have done a better job at testing to make sure these problems didn't happen. I know I'm being an MS apologist, but it's just not practical for MS to test very possible setup a home user could have, the countless hardware configurations, etc.
The implication I'm hearing is that MS could have done a better job. I really wonder if that's true?
Not implied even slightly.
